ADR Uzbekistan

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION
UZBEKISTAN
Sales #: E.09.III.B.12
ISBN: 978-92-1-126245-2
United Nations Development Programme

Evaluation Office
One United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017, USA
Tel. (212) 906 5059, Fax (212) 906 6008
Internet: http://www.undp.org/eo
UZBEKISTAN
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINAT

efficiency COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIP sust
NATIONAL OWNERSHIP relevance MANAGING FO
sustainability MANAGING FOR RESULTS responsivene
AN DEVELOPMENT responsiveness NATIONAL OWN
NATIONAL OWNERSHIP effectiveness COORDINAT
effectiveness

UZBEKISTAN
Evaluation Office, May 2009

REPORTS PUBLISHED UNDER THE ADR SERIES

Afghanistan
Argentina
Bangladesh
Barbados
Benin
Bhutan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Botswana
Bulgaria
China
Colombia
Republic of the Congo
Egypt
Ethiopia
Guatemala
Honduras
India
Jamaica
Jordan
Lao PDR
Montenegro
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Rwanda
Serbia
Sudan
Syrian Arab Republic
Tajikistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Turkey
Viet Nam
Yemen
EVALUATION TEAM
Team Leader
Pekka Alhojrvi
Team Members
Ana Androsik
Obid Hakimov
EO Task Manager
Michael Reynolds
EO Research Assistant
Nidhi Sharma
ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS: EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION UZBEKISTAN
Copyright UNDP 2009, all rights reserved.

Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on recycled paper.
The analysis and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the
United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or the United Nations Member
States. This is an independent publication by UNDP and reflects the views of its authors.
Cover images: {l. to r.) Ifoda Abdurazakova, Fotolia, Umida Axmedova, Manabu Shimoyashiro
Report editing and design: Suazion, Inc. (NY, suazion.com)
Production: A.K. Office Supplies (NY)
FOREWORD
This is an independent evaluation conducted
by the Evaluation Office of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) in Uzbekistan.
This evaluation, titled Assessment of
Development Results: Evaluation of UNDP
Contribution Uzbekistan, assesses the relevance
and strategic positioning of UNDP support and
contribution to Uzbekistans development between
2000 and mid-2008. It examines UNDP
interventions under the various thematic areas of
the ongoing and previous country programmes,
with the aim of providing forward-looking
recommendations meant to assist the UNDP
country office and its partners in the formulation
and implementation of the next programme cycle.
The Assessment of Development Results (ADR)
notes that UNDP has made an important contribution to Uzbekistans development during the
period under review. This contribution took place
during a time of rapid change, including the
implementation of key reforms, fast economic
growth and changes in the countrys relationship
with the international community. Though such
circumstances have made the engagement more
complex, they have also offered opportunities for
UNDP. UNDP has remained committed to
supporting Uzbekistan and has a sound programme,
much appreciated by the partner government.
The ADR concluded that UNDP has been
relevant to Uzbekistans priority development
needs, as have been defined by the President and
the Government of Uzbekistan, and to the needs
articulated at the local and regional levels.
UNDP responsiveness has led to a wide-ranging
programme. However, in order to increase the
effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of
future interventions, it is important for UNDP to
focus on fewer issues (and on those in which it
has comparative strengths), and to take a more
comprehensive and long-term approach.
FOREWORD
A number of people contributed to the evaluation, and I would like to thank the evaluation
team composed of Pekka Alhojrvi, the evaluation team leader, Ana Androsik and Obid
Hakimov. From the side of the Evaluation
Office, I would like to thank Michael Reynolds,
the evaluation task manager, and Kutisha Ebron,
Thuy Hang To and Anish Pradhan for their
administrative support.
The evaluation was also completed thanks to the
collaboration and openness of the staff of the
UNDP office in Uzbekistan. I would like to
give special thanks to the UNDP Resident
Representative ad interim Ercan Murat who
supported the evaluation office and the evaluation team during the preparation and mission to
Uzbekistan, and Anita Nirody, his successor, who
provided support during the finalization of the
report and the successful stakeholder meeting.
Special thanks goes to Kyoko Postill and
Antonina Sevastyanova who provided support
throughout the process and without whose
help the evaluation may not have taken place.
I would also like to thank the UNDP Regional
Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of
Independent States, especially Christine Roth,
Sanjar Tursaliev and Yulia Oleinik. This report
was edited by Jeffrey Stern.
This report would not have been possible
without the commitment and support of
numerous partners of UNDP in Uzbekistan.
Special thanks goes to the government, civil
society and community representatives, not only
in Tashkent but also those whom the evaluation
mission visited in the Fergana, Karakalpakstan,
Kashkadarya and Namangan provinces. The
team is also indebted to those representatives
from national civil society organizations, donor
countries and the United Nations country team,
including those from international financial
institutions, who generously gave their time and
frank views.
I hope that the findings and recommendations of

this report will assist UNDP in responding to
Uzbekistans challenges and provide broader
lessons that may be of relevance to UNDP and its
partners internationally.
Saraswathi Menon
Director, Evaluation Office
ii
FOREWORD
CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Purpose and scope

Methodology of the ADR
The evaluation process
Structure of the report
v
vii
1
1
1
3
4
2. Subregional development context

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Institutional setting
Economic development
Human development and the Millennium Development Goals
International cooperation
3. UN and UNDP in Uzbekistan

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
The UN in Uzbekistan
The UNDP programmes
Financing the programme
Programme management and implementation
4. UNDP contribution to national development results

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty

Fostering democratic governance
Energy and environment for sustainable development
Responding to HIV/AIDS
5. Cross-cutting themes and operational issues

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Gender
Capacity development
Programme management issues
UN system and donor coordination
6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Main conclusions
6.2 Recommendations
5
6
8
9
13
13
14
15
16
19
19
25
30
35
39
39
41
42
43
45
45
47
Annexes
Annex 1. Terms of Reference
Annex 2. List of individuals consulted
Annex 3. List of documents reviewed
CONTENTS
49
57
6
iii
Boxes, figures and tables

Box 2.1 Key characteristics of the Welfare Improvement Strategy
iv
Box 2.2 WIS proposals for improving work with international organizations
11
Box 4.1 Valuable assets and advantages of the Center for Economic Research
21
Box 4.2 Electronically submitting tax reports and financial statements
28
Box 4.3 Legislative framework for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Uzbekistan
38
Box 5.1 UNDP success stories: projects aimed at the promotion of the rights of
women migrant workers (Phase II)
40
Box 5.2 Three levels of capacity development
41
Figure 1. Total programme expenditures by UNDP corporate goal
15
Table 1. Evaluation criteria and questions
Table 2. Main economic indicators of Uzbekistan
Table 3. Progress towards achievement of the MDGs in Uzbekistan
Table 4. Poverty rates by province
Table 5. Human development of Uzbekistan
Table 6. Total net ODA disbursements as a percent of total 20002006 (constant 2006 prices)
10
Table 7. Total net ODA disbursements by year (20002006, US$ million, constant 2006 prices)
10
Table 8. UNDP programme expenditures (20002008)
16
Table 9. Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty: expected results
19
Table 10. Capacity for monitoring and reporting MDG progress
20
Table 11. Fostering democratic governance: expected results
25
Table 12. Energy and environment for sustainable development: expected results
30
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABD
ADB
ADR
BOMCA/CADAP
CCA
CCI
CCM
CDM
CER
CPD
DAC
ELS
EO
EU
FAO
GEF
HIV/AIDS
IBRD
ICT
ICTP
LSS
MDG
NSP
OECD
UNAIDS
UNDAF
UNICEF
UNDP
UNFPA
UNODC
WHO
WIS
Area Based Development

Asian Development Bank
Assessment of Development Results
Border Management Programme for Central Asia/Drug Action Programme
in Central Asia
Common Country Assessment
Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Country Coordination Mechanism
Clean Development Mechanism
Center for Economic Research
Country Programme Document
Development Assistance Committee
Enhancement of Living Standards
Evaluation Office
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Global Environment Facility
Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Information communication technology
Information Communication Technology Policy project
Living Standard Strategy
Millennium Development Goals
National Strategic Plan
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
United Nations Development Assistance Framework
United Nations Children's Fund
United Nations Population Fund
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime
World Health Organization
Welfare Improvement Strategy
A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Uzbekistan is a double landlocked, low-income
country in Central Asia, rich in copper, gold,
oil, natural gas and uranium. The 2008 Human
Development Report characterized the nation as a
medium human development country. Since its
independence in 1991, Uzbekistan has been
implementing reform policies to move it away
from structures inherited from the former Soviet
Union. Dismantling the systems, structures and
ways of thinking accumulated during 70 years
has been an enormous challenge.
The United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) has had a representative office in
Uzbekistan since 1993, aiming to support
Uzbekistan in its efforts to develop a strong,
market-based economy and a flourishing
democracy. This Assessment of Development
Results (ADR) examined UNDP contribution to
Uzbekistans national development results over
the last eight years. The primary reason for
selecting Uzbekistan for an ADR was the
forthcoming completion of the 20052009 UNDP
Country Programme. This presents an opportunity to evaluate the achievements and results of
the past programme cycle, and to feed findings
and conclusions into the process of developing
and implementing the new programme.
The objectives of the Uzbekistan ADR as
defined by the Terms of Reference are to:
Present key findings, draw key lessons and

provide a set of clear and forward-looking
options for UNDP management to make
adjustments to the current strategy and the
next UNDP Country Programme.
The ADR reviewed UNDP experience in

Uzbekistan over the 20002004 and 20052009
country programmes. The evaluation undertook
a comprehensive review of the programme
portfolio and activities, including UNDP
programmes funded by both core resources and
third-parties. The evaluation examined both the
main UNDP sub-programmes and cross-cutting
areas, with special attention paid to the role of
UNDP in promoting gender mainstreaming
and capacity development in the country. In
addition, the ADR examined the role of UNDP
in supporting UN system coordination in
Uzbekistan. While the ADR is neither an audit
nor a review of administrative procedures, it
considers the impact of operational constraints
affecting the programme.
The evaluation was carried out by an independent
three-person evaluation team and managed by
the UNDP Evaluation Office in New York.
Key data collection methods included desk
reviews and in-country interviews with a broad
range of stakeholders.
UNDP IN UZBEKISTAN
Provide an independent assessment of the
progress (or lack thereof ) towards the expected
outcomes envisaged in UNDP programming
documents, and where appropriate, highlight
missed opportunities and unexpected
positive and negative outcomes;
Provide an analysis of how UNDP has
positioned itself to add value in response to
national needs and changes in the national
development context; and
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past eight years, UNDP has focused its

work within four main themes in line with its
mandate and corporate strategic planning tools.
The following represents some of the key
findings in each of these areas:
Poverty reduction: At the national level,

UNDP provided important support to the
development of the Welfare Improvement
Strategy (20082010), as well as related
vii
policy support in response to government

needs (including the use of the Millennium
Development Goals). At the local level,
UNDP has played an important role in direct
interventions aimed at improving the living
standards among vulnerable parts of the
population in several regions.
Democratic governance: UNDP has

supported public administration reform
largely through capacity development and
supporting the effective use of information
and communication technologies (ICT). It
has also worked directly with the Parliament,
providing consultative services and supporting capacity development and the use of
ICT. Support has also been provided to
promote human rights and gender equality.
Energy and the environment: UNDP has
provided important support to national
authorities in policy and strategy development, especially in relation to the issue of the
Aral Sea, and has been active in promoting
energy efficiency. It has also supported
national efforts related to combating desertification and land degradation, as well as
supporting conservation and the sustainable
use of biodiversity.
HIV/AIDS: UNDP worked in close
partnership with other members of the UN
country team and other development
partners in order to support the national
struggle against HIV/AIDS. Special efforts
were made at a regional level and in facilitating the effective national use of resources
from the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria.
UNDP has also played the lead role in facilitating greater coordination of the UN system
in Uzbekistan.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Overall, UNDP has made an important contribution to Uzbekistans development during the
period under review. This contribution took
place during a time of rapid change, including
viii
the implementation of key reforms, fast

economic growth and a change in the countrys
relationship with the international community.
Though such circumstances have made the

engagement more complex, they have also
offered opportunities for UNDP. UNDP has
remained committed to supporting Uzbekistan
and has a sound programme, much appreciated
by the partner government. Measuring UNDP
contribution towards stated programme outcomes
is difficult in view of limited available data and
changes in the direction of the programme over
time. Although a comprehensive examination of
the total portfolio of projects was not conducted,
the effectiveness of achieving project results can
be assessed as satisfactory. UNDP interventions to
support achieving the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) and reducing human poverty made
important contributions to the stated outcomes.
In support to fostering democratic governance, the
contribution towards the stated goals was more
limited, partly due to a change in the direction of
this group of activities during the ongoing
programme; nonetheless, important contributions
to national results were made. In the area of energy
and environment for sustainable development,
UNDP efforts went beyond its contribution to
the relevant outcome stated in the 20052009
country programme document.
2. UNDP has been relevant to Uzbekistans
priority development needs, as these have been
defined by the President and the Government of
Uzbekistan, and to the needs articulated at local
and regional levels.
UNDP has been working with a partner government that has a strong willingness to take
national ownership of development processes.
Strong responsiveness to, and close cooperation
with, governmental authorities has proven to be
an efficient method of jointly developing
effective programmes and projects. This approach
has also guaranteed strong government commitment. If commitment and sustainability are to be
achieved, it is crucial to undertake a participatory
approach from the very beginning of the process.
This is relevant at all activity levels, from central
government and the Parliament to local projects
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and other activities. Problems that are identified

and prioritized by local people and their
groupsand solved based on joint preparationshave led to sustainable results. Social
infrastructure projects in the UNDP portfolio
that address water, gas and heating problems
offer good examples of this type of activity.
Where UNDP interventions support local-level
private-sector development, care needs to be
taken in order to ensure that its efforts support
the market for credit, not distort it through the
provision of grants.
In some cases, UNDP may have missed opportunities for engagementfor example, in areas
where the comparative UNDP strength of
neutrality and long-term commitment to
Uzbekistans development could have played an
important role. In the case of Uzbekistans
Welfare Improvement Strategy, UNDP did not
capitalize on some of its expertise (e.g., environment and energy issues) and did not conduct an
adequate analysis of implementation risks, the
importance of which was underscored by recent
changes in the global financial climate.
3. UNDP responsiveness has led to a wideranging programme. In order to increase the
interventions, it is important for UNDP to focus
on fewer issues (and on those in which it has
comparative strengths) and to take a more
Although UNDP has been responsive to government needs as these emergedespecially in the
area of providing technical support to policy
formulationin some cases, UNDP has been so
responsive that it lost sight of the need to focus
on projects with long-term strategic linkages.
UNDP could have been more critical in selecting
proposals with strategic development importance
and prioritizing them using development strategies.
In UNDP support for democratic governance,
important and high-priority projects have been
implemented in two country programme cycles,
but proposals were not conducted strategically. In
other areas, including energy, national priorities
were unclear and projects were typically scattered,
offering limited strategic or policy-level linkages.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the same time, the approaches, scope and

selection of proposals were occasionally heavily
influenced by available funding mechanisms and
instruments, and driven by resource mobilization
concerns. A more strategic response, where
interventions are anchored to clear national
priorities, could be facilitated through better
use of annual Country Programme Action
Plan reviews.
Follow-up to development projects is increasingly needed in order to ensure effectiveness and
maximize UNDP contributions. Considering
development activities as longer-term processes
instead of projects with strict cycles would be
useful in some cases, particularly in complex
processes such as legislative development.
The overall UNDP approach of combining
policy support in the capital with direct interventions at the local level has been balanced,
especially in the context of the declining engagement of international development partners since
2004. The comparative strengths of UNDP lie in
its work in rural areas and in its access to central
government. Maintaining the appropriate balance
between the two, and ensuring strong linkages
between lessons learned at the local level and
central policy making, will remain a major
challenge in the next programme. The change in
the aid environmentfollowing re-engagement
of many international organizations and growing
interest in addressing rural issuesmay mean
that UNDP will need to play a more focused and
strategic role at the local level, such as by facilitating local government aid coordination to
complement its support to aid coordination at
the central level.
4. UNDP has engaged in some good development partnerships, and now needs to build on
them, ensuring that it adds value to relationships
(e.g., though the promotion of human development and/or ensuring the involvement of the
most vulnerable and marginalized portions
of society).
UNDP strategic partnerships vary between

sectors, projects and government levels. The
strongest partnerships are with governmental
authorities that jointly prepare and implement all
ix
relevant projects and activities. These partnerships are based on mutual respect, but require a
higher degree of UNDP accountability and
greater transparency of intervention selection and
resource allocation.
UNDP has also established a variety of quality
partnerships with international development
partners. For example, UNDP has managed
projects for The World Bank, such as the Water
and Sanitation project funded by an IBRD loan.
UNDP has also worked in partnerships where its
added value went beyond management: in
working with the European Commission,
primarily on ELS projects and the regional
BOMCA/CADAP initiatives, UNDP added
value through its expertise in working with local
communities and drawing on global best
practices. These experiences have satisfied the
partners, and while cooperation is likely to
continue, it will be within a very different
environment as re-engagement of many such
partners intensifies.
The UNDP role in such partnerships is likely to
change from overall programme management to
implementation of either select programme
elements or areas where UNDP has a strong
presence. Closer collaboration with donors and
international financial institutions should focus
on incorporating human development approaches
and priorities within investment programmes.
Such linkages are required, particularly in the
fields of environment, energy, water resources
and agricultural sector development. In such
partnerships, the role of UNDP would increasingly tend towards the inclusion of the most
vulnerable and marginalized stakeholders. At the
same time, the increased involvement of the
European Union, its member countries and other
bilateral agencies will mean that they may also
need to utilize UNDP experience in their future
interventions, especially at the local level.
5. While capacity development has been at the
centre of many UNDP interventions, limited use
has been made of the tools and approaches that
UNDP has developed at the corporate level.
Inadequate use of capacity assessments has led to

reduced effectiveness and efficiency of interven-
tions, and limited sustainability of results. At the

same time, project design has sometimes led to
inefficient approaches to capacity development.
For example, instead of UNDP and its partners
training all participants, appropriate institutes at
local, regional and national levels could have been
strengthened in order to initially focus on
producing local specialists to take over
subsequent capacity development activities.
Where UNDP has used this approach in
Uzbekistan, it has been successfulthe approach
needs to be replicated across all activities.
6. There is a need for UNDP to increase its
learning from experience and to facilitate
greater opportunities for national learning
from its interventions.
All UNDP interventions should provide lessons

that can support not only its own activities, but
also those of its partners. Specifically, greater
effort needs to be made to link lessons learned to
national policy development. Likewise, UNDP
needs to build on its successes in scaling-up, as in
the ELS/ABD interventions, and to ensure an even
greater scope of regional and national replication.
Evaluation and monitoring practices should also
be strengthened, and a culture of focusing on
results should be established. Learning from
previous experience will not only improve
intervention efficiency, but also improve
effectiveness. In this respect, the international
dissemination of experiences, lessons learned and
best practices should be strengthened. There are
central Asian countries that could benefit from
Uzbekistans experience, while those of others in
the broader region could offer Uzbekistan lessons
in return. With its global network, UNDP is in a
position to facilitate this information exchange.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In agreement with government, focus the
programme on a smaller number of strategic
interventions where UNDP has clear comparative
strengths, is able to offer a long-term commitment and, through relevant partnerships, is
able to address the underlying issue in a
comprehensive manner.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Make efforts to ensure UNDP activities are in

line with those set out in its strategic plan and are
in areas where it has comparative strengths in
Uzbekistan, while remaining responsive to
national priorities. Where there is national
demand for inter-ventions outside these areas,
UNDP should facilitate the development of
partnerships between national and appropriate
international organizations with relevant
expertise for example, through joint programming. UNDP should also continue to build on its
comparative strength of neutrality and long-term
commitment to Uzbekistans development. As an
initial step, UNDP should work closely with the
government to ensure that both comprehensive
environmental concerns and risk analysis are
adequately integrated into national development
planning instruments.
2. Build on existing partnerships with international development partners, but ensure that
UNDP adds value beyond purely management
arrangements.
Incorporate human development approaches in

the interventions of international partners,
building on the UNDP focus and comparative
strengths in promoting human development
in Uzbekistan, especially at the local level.
Implement joint programmes and other forms
of collaboration with international partners
particularly with international financial institutionswhere UNDP can play a role in ensuring
that the most vulnerable and marginalized
groups benefit from interventions.
3. Build on existing experience and relationships
with local government and communities.
Use existing UNDP experience, strengths and

proximity to local government (in the areas
where UNDP works) as a base to comprehensively strengthen and expand the existing
frameworks used to address rural issues.
However, in the context of a changing aid
environment and the re-engagement of many
donors, UNDP should be more strategic in local
interventions and in support of local government.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4. Expand the UNDP role in supporting government efforts at aid coordination.
As a committed and neutral partner, UNDP is in

a good position to support government aid
coordination activities and to ensure more
effective use of external assistance. UNDP should
play the leading role in supporting government
coordination of aid at the local level, linking its
support to better aid coordination in the centre.
This includes donor coordination, facilitating
partnerships and disseminating information
about donor agencies and funding opportunities.
5. Strengthen UNDP support to capacity
development in Uzbekistan through a more
rigorous and systematic application of corporate
capacity development tools and approaches.
Use needs and institutional assessments in all

project preparations while ensuring that
corporate tools are adapted to the specific context
of Uzbekistan. In order to facilitate greater
sustainability of results, anchor UNDP capacity
development interventions in existing institutions.
6. Ensure that mechanisms are in place
to facilitate linkages between all direct
interventions and decision makers.
Ensure direct and explicit linkages with decision

makers in all UNDP interventions. Lessons
learned should feed into policymaking, and,
where necessary, mechanisms should be put in
place to facilitate such linkages. Moreover, such
linkages will facilitate replication of successful
interventions and scaling up across regions. At
the same time, it is necessary to strengthen
evaluation mechanisms in the country office in
order to facilitate the learning process.
7. Undertake annual Country Programme Action
Plan reviews to increase transparency and to
facilitate greater stakeholder accountability of
UNDP activities in Uzbekistan.
Ensure wider participation in annual reviews and

greater participation of relevant government
bodies in programming processes in order to
ensure the transparency of decision-making and
xi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Uzbekistan is a double landlocked, low-income,
country in Central Asia, rich in copper, gold, oil,
natural gas and uranium. The 2008 Human
Development Report characterized the nation as a
medium human development country. Since its
independence in 1991, Uzbekistan has been
implementing reform policies to move it away
from structures inherited from the former Soviet
Union. Dismantling the systems, structures and
ways of thinking accumulated during 70 years
has been an enormous challenge.

Present key findings, draw key lessons and
next UNDP Country Programme.
The United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) has had a representative office in
Uzbekistan in its efforts to develop a strong,
democracy. This Assessment of Development
Results (ADR) examined UNDP contribution to
Uzbekistans national development results over
the last eight years. The primary reason for
selecting Uzbekistan for an ADR was the
forthcoming completion of the 20052009
UNDP Country Programme. This presents an
opportunity to evaluate the achievements and
results of the past programme cycle, and to feed
findings and conclusions into the process of
developing and implementing the new programme.
The ADR reviewed UNDP experience in

Uzbekistan over the 20002004 and 20052009
country programmes. The evaluation undertook
a comprehensive review of the programme
portfolio and activities, including UNDP
programmes funded by both core resources and
third-parties. The evaluation examined both the
main UNDP sub-programmes and cross-cutting
areas, with special attention paid to the role of
UNDP in promoting gender mainstreaming
and capacity development in the country. In
addition, the ADR examined the role of UNDP
in supporting UN system coordination in
Uzbekistan. While the ADR is neither an audit
nor a review of administrative procedures, it
considers the impact of operational constraints
affecting the programme.
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
1.2 METHODOLOGY OF THE ADR
The objectives of the Uzbekistan ADR as

defined by the Terms of Reference are to:
The Uzbekistan ADR focuses on outcomes,

concentrating on changes in specific development conditions and on the contributions that
UNDP outputs have made to achieve these
outcomes. The evaluation identified the most
important lessons learned and good practices that
have emerged in relation to the direct achievement of development results and in relation to
UNDP strategic positioning in Uzbekistan.

progress (or lack thereof ) towards the expected
outcomes envisaged in UNDP programming
documents, and where appropriate, highlight
missed opportunities and unexpected
positive and negative outcomes;
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Table 1. Evaluation criteria and questions 1

Effectiveness
Did the UNDP programme accomplish its intended objectives and planned results?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the programme? What are the unexpected
results it yielded? Should it continue in the same direction or should its main tenets be
reviewed for the new cycle?
Efficiency
How well did UNDP use its resources (human and financial) in achieving its contribution? What could be done to ensure a more efficient use of resources in the specific
country/subregional context?
Sustainability
Is the UNDP contribution sustainable? Are development results achieved through UNDP
contribution sustainable? Are the benefits of UNDP interventions sustained and owned by
national stakeholders after the intervention was completed?
Relevance
How relevant are UNDP programmes to the countrys priority needs? Did UNDP apply
the right strategy within the specific political, economic and social context of the
region? To what extent are long-term development needs likely to be met across
practice areas?
Responsiveness
How did UNDP anticipate and respond to significant changes in the national development context? How did UNDP respond to national long-term development needs? What
were the missed opportunities in UNDP programming?
Partnerships
How has UNDP leveraged partnerships within the UN system, national civil society and
the private sector?
UNDP-supported projects and interventions

were assessed as contributions to development
results rather than as separate undertakings.
While the ADR examined some of the most
strategic outputs delivered by UNDP Uzbekistan,
it is not a comprehensive review of all outputs
and does not directly attribute specific development outcomes to the outputs. Rather, it aims
to establish credible links between what UNDP
has supported in the country and what has
subsequently occurred. This aspect of the
methodology is further discussed in the introduction to Chapter 4.
There are two main sources of information for
the ADR. First, a cross-section of stakeholders
were selected for consultation through informal
stakeholder mapping. The cross-section included
UNDP country office staff, central and local
government officials, project managers, civil society,
the private sector, international community and
direct beneficiaries of UNDP interventions.

Second, the ADR reviewed documents, including:
UNDP corporate and country programming
documents; government programmes and
reports; country strategies and policy papers of
donor agencies and international financial
institutions; and papers by national and international research institutes and universities. All
documentation was made available to the team
through a Web site organized and maintained by
the Evaluation Office.
The Uzbekistan ADR is based on qualitative
data collection and analysis of primary source
materials, as well as document review of
secondary sources and quantitative synthesis and
analysis of relevant secondary data (e.g.,
budgetary and expenditure patterns, types and
range of partners and projects). It employed a
variety of data collection methods, including:
1. The Terms of Reference included an evaluation criterion related to equity, which was merged into the effectiveness criteria.

Desk reviews and documentary analysis;
1.3 THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Semi-structured interviews (primarily with

government, donor organizations and the
private sector);
The following steps were used to plan and

perform the ADR:
Questionnaire-based structured interviews

targeted at UNDP personnel and select
stakeholder groups (primarily donors);
Group interviews conducted at the local
level (target groups included farmers and
community representatives); and
Select site visits of regional and local level activities in order to assess implementation issues.
Different sources of information and different

methods of data collection allowed the evaluation
team to cross-check and complement information obtained.
The analysis of contribution to development
results and strategic positioning draws on a set of
evaluation criteria, each of which relates to a
number of evaluation questions. Data collection
is conducted to provide answers to evaluation
questions, which in turn provide the necessary
elements for the conclusions of the ADR.
Table 1 is a compilation of evaluation criteria and
questions applied in each theme and crosscutting issue of the country programmes.
The evaluation faced a number of limitations: the
relatively short period between the scoping and
main missions meant that some data collection
methods (e.g., comprehensive surveys) could not
be used. In addition, broad consultation was
often difficult due to the underdeveloped civil
society in Uzbekistan. However, the ADR team
was able to access programme, project and related
documentation through the country office Web
site. It also made use of past project evaluations
of key UNDP interventions in Uzbekistan,
although no outcome evaluations were available
at the time of the ADR mission.
Team pre-planning meetings were held at

UNDP headquarters in New York in June
2008 in order to develop the overall strategy
for the ADR, collect and review background
materials and orient the team;
A scoping mission to Uzbekistan took place
immediately after the pre-planning meetings.
This involved obtaining an overview of the
programme, its structure and activities and
its main stakeholders in order to assist in
planning for the main mission;
The main data collection mission took place
from the end of July to August 2008. At the
end of the main mission, the ADR team
presented tentative results in a debriefing
meeting organized by UNDP Uzbekistan;
A debriefing meeting was held by the Team
Leader in New York in September 2008,
followed by a visit to the UNDP Regional
Centre in Bratislava to interview staff;
The report was reviewed by internal and
external personnel, including country-level
stakeholders; and
A workshop was held in April 2009 and final
findings and results were discussed among a
broad range of stakeholders from Tashkent
and selected regions.
Given the time constraints of the main mission,

no more than two to three days were dedicated to
project site visits per district. The site visits were
meant to gather information in order to complement other sources of informationthey should
not be regarded as project evaluations. The
following regions were visited:2

Karakalpakstan;
Fergana;
Namangan; and
Kashkadarya.
2. Regions were selected based on levels of poverty, environmental concerns and degree of UNDP engagement.
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The report is divided into six chapters. Following
this introduction, Chapter 2 describes the
national development context, including the role
of development cooperation and the overall
development challenges faced by the country.
Chapter 3 describes the UN and UNDP presence
in Uzbekistan. Chapter 4 presents findings

related to the UNDP contribution to national
development results over the basic components
of its country programmes. Chapter 5 consists
of findings related to cross-cutting themes.
Finally, Chapter 6 sets out conclusions and
recommendations.
Chapter 2
COUNTRY CONTEXT
Uzbekistan is a double landlocked country,
covering 447,000 square kilometres and sharing
borders with five Asian countries: Afghanistan,
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and
Turkmenistan. The landscape of Uzbekistan is
mostly flat-to-rolling sandy deserts with arable
lands covering only one-tenth of its total area.
Close to 5 percent of the country is covered by
water. The main water supply of Uzbekistan
comes through two major rivers: the Amu Darya
(with headwaters in Afghanistan and Tajikistan)
and the Syr Darya (with headwaters in Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan). The resources of these rivers are
divided among neighbouring countries.
Among Central Asian countries, Uzbekistans
population is the largestas of 2007, it was
almost 27 million. About 76 percent of the
population is ethnically Uzbek, and the majority
of the population (88 percent) are Muslim
(mainly Sunni). Almost 36 percent of the
population lives in urban areas, a slight decline
from 2001. In 2007, almost 60 percent of the
population was under 30 years old, and just under
40 percent was less than 19 years old. There are
significant differences between rural and urban
areasfor example, the population of rural areas
has a higher percentage of young people.
2.1 INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

In 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Uzbekistan
declared the republic independent. The
subsequent adoption of the Constitution of the
Republic of Uzbekistan on 8 December 1992
created the institutional and legislative basis for a
sovereign Uzbekistan. After 2003,3 the bicameral
Oliy Majlis4 became the highest legislative body
in the country. It is composed of 220 deputies

elected for five-year terms through multi-party
elections in local districts. The Office of the
President is at the centre of the public administration and the political system, as the President
is both the Head of State and the Chairman of
the Cabinet of Ministers (the highest executive
body). Under the Cabinet of Ministers are
fourteen ministries, nine state committees, six
agencies and other bodies.
Administratively, Uzbekistan consists of the
Republic of Karakalpakstan (an autonomous
territory), twelve regions, 120 cities and 164
districts. The Councils of Peoples Deputies
local councilsare the representative authorities
at the city, district and regional levels. At all
levels, local councils are headed by a chairman, or
hokim. In addition, city, district and regional
hokims act as the head of the local executive
branch, or hokimiyat. Local government in
Uzbekistan is supplemented by self-governing
community organizations. Citizens over the age
of eighteen exercise their constitutional right to
self-governance through citizen assemblies.
These assemblies, the highest body of
community self-government, represent the
interests of its inhabitants and make decisions on
the respective territorys behalf.
Following independence, no overall medium- or
long-term national development planning instruments were put in place. A major change
occurred in 2007, when the Cabinet of Ministers
approved the Welfare Improvement Strategy
(WIS) of Uzbekistan as a medium-term
(20082010) national development document of
the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan
3. Law of Republic of Uzbekistan, On additional amendments to Constitution of Uzbekistan, 24.04.2003, N470-II.

4. Supreme Council.
CHAPTER 2: COUNTRY CONTEXT
Box 2.1 Key characteristics of the Welfare Improvement Strategy

Comprehensive approach to development. Achieving the goals and objectives set forth in the WIS calls for
developing and implementing a range of economic policies covering all priority areas of development and all
critical aspects of the reform process. This will increase the effectiveness of the measures the government
undertakes to foster economic growth and improve the livelihoods of the population.
Transition from short-term projections to medium-term and long-term strategies. The WIS sets both
the medium- and long-term priorities for development and the transformation of various aspects of socioeconomic and public life through 2015. Thus, the completion of the WIS concludes the first stage of transition from primarily short-term and sectoral approaches to medium- and long-term development strategies.
Forming the conceptual framework for regional development strategies. The WIS will not only become
a strategic document for promoting economic growth and improving livelihoods of the population, but
also it will become an aspect of the vision of the countrys development path for the foreseeable future.
This lays the foundation for implementing methods and approaches of strategic governance at the regional
level in close coordination with the national development strategy. Policies and new initiatives reflected in
the WIS could be pilot-tested as regional-level experiments prior to clarification and national dissemination.
Greater opportunities for resource mobilization. Key to the success of national, sectoral and regional
development projects and programmes is the active involvement of stakeholders, including those from
civil society, the private sector, international organizations and other development partners. The Strategy
itself and the process by which it is designed, implemented and monitored can serve as the basis for
expanding constructive collaboration between the government and all stakeholders.
Source: Government of Uzbekistan,Welfare Improvement Strategy, 2007.
for determining the main areas and measures for

accelerating economic growth and enhancing the
living standards of the population.5 The key
features of the strategy are listed in Box 2.1.6
2.2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

During the Soviet period, Uzbekistan was
predominantly an agrarian society, with cotton
being the main agricultural product. After 1991,
Uzbekistan started transitioning from a plan-based
economy to a market-based system. During the
transition period, priority was given to privatization,
modernization of production processes, industrialization, development of the private sector and

institutional development. During the last
decade, the economic performance of Uzbekistan
was remarkable. From 2000 to 2003, the average
growth rate of the gross domestic product (GDP)
was 3 to 4 percent. Since 2004, the growth rates
were higher than 7 percent, and in 2007, more
than 9 percent. Given the stability of population
growth over this period, GDP per capita also
increased significantly. Table 2 illustrates this
rapid growth as well as trends in consumer price
inflation over the period.
Table 2. Main economic indicators of Uzbekistan

Indicators
Real GDP growth (annual change, percent)
Consumer price Inflation (year average, percent)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008*
4.2
7.7
7.0
7.3
9.5
9.0
11.6
6.6
10.0
14.2
12.3
11.3
* Projected. Sources: International Monetary Fund,Regional Economic Outlook: Middle East and Central Asia, May 2008.; staff estimates.
5. Government of Uzbekistan, Welfare Improvement Strategy, 2007.

6. The development of the WIS and the UNDP role are discussed in Chapter 4.
Table 3. Progress towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in Uzbekistan

Goals: Targets7
Will the goal/target be met?

Probably
LIVING STANDARDS AND

MALNUTRITION: Reduce
poverty by half by 2015.
QUALITY EDUCATION:
Improve the quality of
primary and basic secondary
education, while maintaining universal access.
Potentially
Unlikely
State of supportive environment

No
data
Strong
Fair
ACHIEVED
CHILD MORTALITY: Reduce

by two-thirds the underfive mortality rate by 2015.
MATERNAL HEALTH: Reduce

maternal mortality ratio by
one-third by 2015.
GENDER EQUALITY:
Improve gender balance in
higher education by 2015.
HIV/AIDS: Have halted by

2015 and begun to reverse
the spread of HIV/AIDS.
TUBERCULOSIS and
MALARIA: Have halted by
2015 and begun to reverse
the incidence of tuberculosis and malaria.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY:
Integrate the Principles of
Sustainable Development
into County Policies and
Programs and Reverse the
Loss of Environmental
Resources by 2015.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY:
Increase the Percentage of
Urban and Rural Population
with Access to an Improved
Water Source and
Sanitation by 2015.
Weak
GENDER EQUALITY:
Achieve gender equality
in primary and general
secondary and vocational
education by 2005.
Weak but
improving
Source: United Nations Country Team,Millennium Development Goal Report 2006, 2006.
7. The Millennium Development Goals used in Uzbekistan have been adapted from the global goals to suit the specific
context of Uzbekistan.
Table 4. Poverty rates by province

Province
Poverty rate (percent)
Karakalpakstan, Kashkadarya, Khorezm, Namangan, Sirdarya and Surkhandarya
3045
Andijon, Bukhara, Fergana, Jizzakh, Novoi, Samarqand
1530
Tashkent
During the Soviet period, the agricultural sector

made up more than 40 percent of GDP. Since
independence, this percentage has decreased: at
the end of 2007, the agricultural sector made up
only 20 percent of GDP. This decline is in the
context of Uzbekistans continuing significant
agricultural reforms, including the important
step of transferring government farms to the
private sector. From 2000 to 2006, the percentage
of the industrial sector in GDP increased from
14.2 percent to 22.1 percent. The majority of
industrial sector production belongs to large
enterprises. The combination of a growing
rural population (almost 64 percent of the total)
and a declining agricultural sector has lead to an
increase in inequality between rural and urban
areas, and has created challenges in addressing
low living standards.
2.3 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

AND THE MILLENNIUM
DEVELOPMENT GOALS
According to the 2006 Millennium Development
Goals (MDG) report prepared by the UN
country team in Uzbekistan, progress is being
made towards all goals with only the HIV/AIDS
targets unlikely to be met by 2015. Table 3
illustrates the likelihood of achieving targets and
the state of the supportive environment of each.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
As the economy gradually revived, the poverty

rate fell from 44.5 percent, identified in 1994
through a one-time sample survey, to 27.5
percent in 2001, according to the findings of
household budget surveys conducted using The
World Bank methodology.8 According to the
2007 WIS, from 2001 to 2005, the average
poverty rate in Uzbekistan decreased by 1.7
percent,9 while the poverty rate of the urban
population decreased by 4.2 percent.10 During
the same period, the rural poverty rate did not
undergo significant changes, decreasing just 0.5
percent.11 Table 4 indicates the degree of poverty
in Uzbekistan by province.
From 2000 to the end of 2005, the life
expectancy at birth increased from 70.8 years to
71.8 years. Adult literacy rate is above 99 percent.
Furthermore, indicators of the human development index increased from 0.736 to 0.75912 over
the same period and the gender-rated development index and the womens empowerment
index of Uzbekistan also increased significantly.
The full trends are illustrated in Table 5.
Since 2000, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases
has been increasing. In 2005, there were 2,198
newly registered HIV/AIDS cases. In addition,
from 1991 to 2002, the number of tuberculosis
Government of Uzbekistan, Welfare Improvement Strategy, 2007.

Decreasing from 27.5 to 25.8 percent.
Decreasing from 22.5 to 18.3 percent.
Decreasing from 30.5 to 30 percent.
UNDP, Human Development Report. Uzbekistan 20072008. Education in Uzbekistan: Matching Supply and
Demand, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2008, Statistical Table 1. Data may differ from that reported in the global UNDP Human
Development Report.
Table 5. Human development of Uzbekistan

Indicators
2000
Life expectancy at birth (in years)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
70.8
71.3
71.2
71.6
71.2
71.8
99.17
99.18
99.19
99.20
99.31
99.36
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.6
11.7
11.7
Human development index
0.736
0.740
0.742
0.748
0.751
0.759
Gender-related development index
0.733
0.736
0.738
0.744
0.746
0.747
Indicator of women's empowerment
0.382
0.378
0.380
0.411
0.440
0.500
Adult literacy rate (percent of population)

Mean years of schooling
Source: UNDP,Human Development Report. Uzbekistan 20072008. Education in Uzbekistan: Matching Supply and Demand,
UNDP Uzbekistan, 2008.
incidents increased from 46,000 to nearly 80,000.

However, since 2002, the trend of tuberculosis
incidences has started to decline, though its
incidence is increasing in regions with ecological
problems (e.g., Karakalpakstan).
Like many ex-Soviet countries, Uzbekistan
inherited a terrible environmental legacy and
environmental issues remain a major concern for
sustainable human development in Uzbekistan.
The Environmental Profile of Uzbekistan13
presents a comprehensive analysis of the environment and some prospects for future development.
The main environmental concerns are:
Irrational use and pollution of water resources;
Imperfect waste management practices;
Air pollution;
Biodiversity conservation;
Climate change; and
Desertification and land degradation.
The report also emphasizes the need to further

develop and improve the environmental indica-
tors database in order to enable more efficiently

monitor and solve these and other challenges.
The report also explores energy problems and the
increasing need to supplement and replace nonrenewable energy sources with renewable sources,
including solar power, wind energy, mini-hydro
power plants and biogas.
2.4 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

International development cooperation started
soon after independence. Uzbekistan was quick
to join international financial institutions: in
1992, it became a member of the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, the
International Monetary Fund and The World
Bank,14 and in 1995, Uzbekistan became a
member of the Asian Development Bank. The
European Union has also been an important
partner, and among bilateral donors, the United
States and Japan have been the largest donors.
Table 6 illustrates the relative size of aid from
the major international organizations since
2000. According to the data provided by the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the largest three
bilateral donors (the United States, Japan and
13. Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee for Nature Protection and UNDP Uzbekistan, Environmental Profile of
Uzbekistan 2008 Based on Indicators, 2008.
14. Uzbekistan is a blend country, borrowing from both International Development Association on concessional terms and
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on market terms.
Table 6. Total net ODA disbursements as a percent of total 20002006 (constant 2006 prices)
OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Countries
74%
United States
29%
Japan
26%
Germany
10%
Other
9%
Non-DAC Countries
12%
Multilateral
14%
Total
100%
Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee.
Table 7. Total net ODA disbursements by year (20002006, US$ million, constant 2006 prices)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
206
193
228
209
244
169
149
Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee.
Germany) account for approximately two thirds

of all official development assistance (ODA) over
the period of 2000 to 2006.
As illustrated in Table 7, there was significant
fluctuation in ODA flows over the 20002006
period, specifically in 2005 and 2006 where
ODA in Uzbekistan was only 70 percent and 60
percent of 2004 levels. Disagreements between
the government and some donors partly explains
the decline in ODA over this period, but
in recent times there has been an important
re-engagement of the donor community with
Uzbekistan. The majority of foreign aid has been

focused on national projects, while approximately
one third of projects have been focused on
specific regions.15
There is no overall aid coordination mechanism
in Uzbekistan, although the WIS is supposed to
facilitate the coordination process and the
integration of donor interventions into national
priorities. The WIS itself contains a proposal
for improving cooperation with international
organizations providing assistance to Uzbekistan
(Box 2.2).
15. Development Aid Coordination Platform of Uzbekistan; see www.devaid.uz/en.
10
Box 2.2 WIS proposals for improving work with international organizations
Expand dialogue with the donor community on project financing issues in the framework of the WIS.
Although international financial institutions and development agencies are demonstrating a readiness for
closer coordination of their programs, a more active government role is necessary for achieving strategic
agreements with donors and improving the forms of collaboration with development partners. In particular,
it is advisable to hold regular meetings (one to two times a year) between the government and international donors, the private sector, and civil society.
The improvement of mechanisms (through which the distribution and monitoring of the effective utilization
of external assistance funds provided in the framework of WIS projects are undertaken for particular
sectors and regional levels) should become the most important goal of changes to the external assistance
coordination system.
Strengthen the state bodies responsible for the coordination of external assistance. Such a system has
already been formed in general. However, it is necessary to build the capacity of the appropriate structural
divisions of the Cabinet of Ministers; the Ministry of the Economy; the Ministry of Finance; and the Ministry
of Foreign Economic Relations, Investments and Trade.
11
Chapter 3
UN AND UNDP IN UZBEKISTAN

Uzbekistan joined the United Nations in March
1992, shortly after the disintegration of the
Soviet Union. In 1993, a UNDP office was
established in Tashkent. This chapter provides
and overview of the UN presence in Uzbekistan
and of the UNDP programmes for the time
period under review by the ADR.
3.1
THE UN IN UZBEKISTAN16
The six resident UN agencies in Uzbekistan are

listed below. In addition, The World Bank is part
of the UN family in Uzbekistan and an active
member of the UN Country Team. The United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was
also active until 2006, when its Uzbekistan office
closed. A Joint United Nations Programme on
HIV/AIDS country office was established in
2005 in order to facilitate and support joint,
coherent actions of all partners in the fight
against HIV/AIDS. The resident UN agencies in
Uzbekistan are:
1. United Nations Childrens Fund;
approximately $80,000 of pre-allocated core

resources per year. To support preparation of the
UNDAF, Common Country Assessments were
prepared in 2001 and 2003. The first Uzbekistan
UNDAF (20052009) was prepared in close
consultation with the government, civil society
and the international community. It is guided by
national priorities, the MDGs and international
conventions to which Uzbekistan is party, and
focuses on strengthening capacity at national and
local levels. The overall objectives of the
UNDAF are to:
1. Develop successful strategies in order to improve
living standards throughout the country;
2. Enhance basic services in the country, specifically
with regard to health and education services;
3. Further harmonize national legislation with
relevant international UN instruments;
4. Build the capacities of, and partnerships
between, government and civil society; and
5. Mainstream human rights and gender issues.
2. United Nations Development Programme;

3. United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization;
4. United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime;
5. United Nations Population Fund; and
6. World Health Organization.
The UN country team develops its programmes
within the United Nations Development
Assistance Framework (UNDAF). The UN
Resident Coordinators Office in Uzbekistan has
three full-time staff members, funded with
There are four joint programmes in Uzbekistan,

and UNDP is involved in two of them: support
to the Mahalla gender advisers, with parallel
funding from UNDP, United Nations Childrens
Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA); and the fight against HIV/
AIDS, with UN agencies, The World Bank and
national partners though the Joint United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
Programme Acceleration Funds. In addition,
UNICEF is undertaking two other joint
programmes, one related to health (with
16. This sections draws on the draft of Uzbekistan UNDAF Mid-Term Review (United Nations Country Team, 2008).
C H A P T E R 3 : U N A N D U N D P I N U Z B E K I S TA N
13
UNFPA) and one related to education (with the

United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization).
The heads of resident UN agencies in Uzbekistan
meet regularly for coordination purposes.17 In
addition, four UN Thematic Groups have been
established to bring together relevant agencies
and other partners. The Thematic Groups are:
Education, HIV/AIDS, Health and Living
Standards. Moreover, a UN Inter-Agency
Communications Task Force was established in
2005 to facilitate a unified communications
platform for the UN system in Uzbekistan.
Beyond the UN system (including The World
Bank), key strategic partners include the Asian
Development Bank and the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development. The Asian
Development Bank cooperates in the fields of
education (the Bank is represented in the
UN Thematic Group on Education), health,
and support to WIS formulation and implementation. Bilateral partnerships with the UN
including participation in UN Thematic
Group discussionsinclude those with the
European Union Technical Assistance to
the Commonwealth of Independent States
programme, the Japan International Cooperation
Agency, Project Hope and the United States
Agency for International Development.
In addition, three cross-cutting issues were identified: a rights-based approach; the environment; and
information and communications technologies.
The 20052009 country programme was
established within the framework of the
UNDAF, and focuses on three sub-programmes:
3.2 THE UNDP PROGRAMMES

The first of the two county programmes being
evaluated, the Country Cooperation Framework
20002004, focused on two broad themes:
Support to the Reform Process: Policy

advice aimed at supporting the governments
capacities to examine and formulate policy
options, and institution-building aimed at
developing and strengthening the structures
and capacities of government to effectively
manage the countrys transformation.
Support to Civil Society and Private Sector

Development: Aimed at supporting public
participation, jobs and income generation.
Economic Governance and Poverty

Reduction: which builds on the work of the
previous programme and focuses on
providing policy advice and building national
capacities in key reform areas. In addition,
the sub-programme supports the building of
sustainable institutions to conceive and
implement employment and poverty
reduction initiatives. The key intervention in
this area is through the Area-Based
Development and Enhancement of Living
Standards initiatives.
Democratic Governance: which provides
continued support to government and civil
society capacity development; acts as a
catalyst through which government and civil
society work together as partners in development; builds capacity to integrate international human rights obligations into the
national legal framework; and promotes
accountability and transparency in government (e.g., aid coordination, capacity
development, e-governance and public
administration reform).
Environmental Governance: which aims to
support capacity development in the sector
(e.g., renewable energy), and to support the
government in meeting international
environmental and sustainable development
commitments and integrate them into
national development planning.
17. Approximately once every six weeks during the period being examined.
14
Figure 1. Total programme expenditures by UNDP corporate goal 18 (20042007)
Energy and Environment, 38%
Democratic Governance, 11%
HIV/AIDS, 14%
Not entered, 4%
Achieving MDGs and Reducing Poverty, 33%
The country office has three units covering each

of these sub-programmes (the work of the AreaBased Development and Enhancement of Living
Standards is managed separately). In addition to
these three broad areas, the Country Programme
Action Plan identified four cross-cutting areas:
national human resources, sub-regional initiatives, gender and the Millennium Development
Goals. Chapter 4 provides additional details
about the sub-programmes and cross-cutting
areas in the context of examining UNDP contribution to national development results.
From 2004 to 2007, most financial resources have
been spent within the practice areas of Achieving
MDGs and Reducing Poverty (33 percent) and
Energy and Environment (38 percent). Figure 1
illustrates this breakdown. Only 11 percent was

used for Democratic Governance, less than for
Responding to HIV/AIDS (14 percent).
3.3 FINANCING THE PROGRAMME

Significant annual variations in total expenditures characterize the financial aspects of the
programme, especially with respect to other
resources (see Table 8).19 The allocation of
regular resources increased significantly between
the 20002004 and the 20052009 country
programmes.20 As funding from other resources
declined over the life of the 20002004
programme, the share of regular resources
increased from 10 percent of total expenditures in
2000 to almost 50 percent in 2004.
18. UNDP, Second Multi-Year Funding Framework, 2004-2007, 2003.

19. Regular resources are UNDP resources that are commingled and untied. These include voluntary contributions, contributions from other governmental, intergovernmental or non-governmental sources, related interest earnings, and miscellaneous income. Other resources are UNDP resources, other than regular resources, that are received for specific programme purposes and the provision of management and support services to third parties.
20. From $5.9 to $14.9 million of regular resources, as indicated in the respective country programme documents.
15
Table 8. UNDP programme expenditures (20002008)

Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total expenditure
12,630
14,048
6,930
5,689
5,027
12,452
18,590
15,048
17,030
Regular resources
expenditure
1,276
1,203
1,236
1,445
2,454
3,278
3,999
4,116
5,083
11,354
12,844
5,695
4,244
2,573
9,174
14,591
10,932
11,948
Regular resources
expenditure
10
18
25
49
26
22
27
30
Other resources
expenditure
90
91
82
75
51
74
78
73
70
US$ thousands
Other resources
expenditure
Percent of total
Source: UNDP Uzbekistan.
Major financial partners include the European

Union (specifically in relation to financing the
Enhancement of Living Standards Programme,
the Border Management Programme in Central
Asia, and the Central Asia Drug Action
Programme), the Global Environment Facility,
The World Bank (through government costsharing in the Water Supply Sanitation and
Health projects), and the Global Fund to fight
Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (where the
UNDP role is purely fiduciary management).
3.4 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

AND IMPLEMENTATION
A Development Services Support Programme
was established to support implementation of the
20002004 country programme. It aimed to
deepen national ownership by replacing the
prevalence of individual projects with a more
comprehensive, integrated, country-led programme
approach, in which projects (components) were
deliberately and consistently linked. It aimed at
sharpening the focus of UNDP support, improving
the efficiency in handling administrative support,
and enhancing development effectiveness. The
objective was to create synergies and strategic
16
orientation within the programme. Ensuing

economies of scale were expected to result
not only in cost savings, but also in greater
programme impact. The programme comprised
four major components:
Policy and advisory services (with several

sub-components);
Aid coordination and management;
Human development; and
Emergency (drought) preparedness

and mitigation.
In addition to these programmes, the UNDP

Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States manages subregional
projects, some of which directly concern
Uzbekistan. The most prominent has been the
EU-funded Border Management Programme for
Central Asia, the objectives of which include
enhancing border security and facilitating legal
trade and transit. The second programme is the
EU-funded Central Asian Drug Action Programme,
which aims to foster a development-oriented
drug control strategy. The goal of the strategy is
to ensure a sustained reduction of drug consumption and trafficking in line with European
Community drug strategies (i.e., taking a public
health approach to drug demand and an
interdiction-based approach to drug trafficking).
Uzbekistan also participates in the UNDP Silk
Road Regional Programme, aiming to improve
physical trade infrastructure and involve smalland medium-sized entities in trans-border
cooperation and international and subregional
trade. From the Regional Bureau portfolio,
Uzbekistan has mostly selected projects that

focus on international legal trade development.
The country has not been involved in programmes
that deal with conflict prevention (e.g., in the
Ferghana valley) or aim at preventing potential
natural catastrophes (e.g., programmes related to
managing water resources originating from
neighbouring countries). The largest regional
project Uzbekistan has taken part in is The World
Bank-funded Long term Joint Capacity-building
for AIDS Control in Central Asia project.
17
Chapter 4
UNDP CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT RESULTS
This chapter analyses UNDP contribution to
Uzbekistan national development. It is divided
into four sections, representing the key areas of
country office engagement. 21 The key areas are:
1. Achieving the MDGs and reducing
human poverty;
2. Fostering democratic governance;
3. Managing energy and environment for
sustainable development; and
4. Responding to HIV/AIDS.
The current country programme uses two

mechanisms to facilitate a coordinated,
synergistic approach within this intervention
area. At the central level, much of the advocacy
and policy support work is channelled through
the Centre for Economic Research, an
Uzbekistan think-tank founded jointly by
UNDP and the Government of Uzbekistan.
At the local level, the Enhancement of Living
Standards (ELS)/Area Based Development
(ABD) approach gives UNDP a presence and
allows UNDP to engage in a variety of interventions through a single mechanism.
4.1 ACHIEVING THE MDGS AND

REDUCING HUMAN POVERTY
4.1.1 STATISTICAL STRENGTHENING

AND MONITORING THE MDGS
The 20052009 Country Programme Document

(CPD) set two outcomes for UNDP contribution
within the area of achieving the MDGs and
reducing human poverty (see Table 9). For
outcome 1, UNDP contribution included
supporting central policy-making and national
strategy development. For outcome 2, UNDP
provided direct support to selected local areas.22
Uzbekistan has endorsed the Millennium

Declaration and is committed to achieving
the MDGs. In 2004, UNDP, together with
other national and international partners,
provided support to adapting (localization or
nationalization) the global goals and targets to
Uzbekistans specific country context and priority
issues. UNDP supported a team of national
Table 9. Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty: expected results
CPD outcome 1
Sustainable human development policies to improve livelihoods and access to

social services by the poor developed
CPD outcome 2
Poor and vulnerable peoples access to quality community-based social services

improved and new sources of income created
21. These key areas correspond to four of the five UNDP corporate goals set out in the UNDP Second Multi-Year Funding
Framework 20042007.
22. UNDP has also started a new project aimed at supporting persons with disabilities (ACCESS: promoting Accessibility,
Civic Consciousness, Employment, and Social Support for people with disabilities). However, it is not included in the
analysis, as the project began after the completion of the main evaluation mission.
C H A P T E R 4 . U N D P C O N T R I B U T I O N T O N AT I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T R E S U LT S
19
Table 10. Capacity for monitoring and reporting MDG progress

Goal (or component
of goal)
Data
gathering
Quality of
survey
information
Statistical
analysis
Statistics
in policymaking
Monitoring
and
evaluation
Living standards and

malnutrition
Weak
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Quality of education
Fair
Fair
Weak
Fair
Fair
Gender equality
Weak
Weak
Fair
Weak
Weak
Child mortality
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Maternal health
Fair
Fair
Weak
Weak
Fair
HIV/AIDS
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Malaria
Fair
Fair
Fair
Weak
Fair
Tuberculosis
Fair
Fair
Fair
Weak
Fair
Environmental
sustainability
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Weak
Source: Government of Uzbekistan and United Nations Country Team,Uzbekistan: Millennium Development Goals Report, 2006, page 65.
experts in preparing the first national MDG

baseline study,23 which analysed the development
context for each goal by setting appropriate
baselines and indicators. Although the main
partner in the localization process was the
Ministry of Economy, the adaptation of each
MDG involved a variety of relevant ministries,
government institutions and independent experts.
These national MDGs were integrated into the
20042006 Uzbekistan Living Standard Strategy,
prepared by government working groups with the
technical assistance of the Asian Development
Bank (ADB). The Living Standard Strategy (LSS)
document notes that the MDGs have provided
an overall framework and vision for the Strategy,
while the formulation of priority policies for poverty
reduction has given impetus to the formulation of
Uzbekistans country-specific MDGs.24
Based on an assessment and analysis of statistics

in Uzbekistan,25 UNDP initiated the Statistical
Capacity-Building for Millennium Development
Goals Monitoring and Reporting project, which
started in 2006. Through the project, UNDP
supported analysis and publications related to the
MDGs, including the 2006 MDG Report for
Uzbekistan, and the Internet-based dissemination of statistical data.26 UNDP also undertook
awareness-raising activities and the regionalization of MDGs. Importantly, UNDP worked with
the government to integrate the MDGs into the
WIS (the successor to the LSS). The WIS clearly
states Uzbekistans obligations to achieve the
MDGs, and the main objectives of the strategy
correspond to the eight localized MDGs.
23. United Nations Country Team and ADB, MDGs in Uzbekistan, 2004.
24. Government of Uzbekistan, Living Standard Strategy, 2004, page 10.
25. Government of Uzbekistan, Official Statistics in Uzbekistan: Institutional Basis, Quality and Access, Policy Brief #1,
Center for Economic Research, 2006.
26. See http://www.statistics.uz/.
20
Box 4.1 Valuable assets and advantages of the Center for Economic Research
Reputation and name recognition in applied policy research
Trust, credibility and good outreach and communication channels to key stakeholders, including the
Government of Uzbekistan and international donors and development agencies
Facilitation of stakeholders dialogue; point of contact between policy-makers, international organizations
and the business community
A solid track record of successfully applied policy reform projects

Project planning, design and implementation tools
A strong indigenous team of policy analysts with solid knowledge of Uzbekistans socio-economic
situation and development problems
Good grasp of policy-making process in Uzbekistan, and knowledge of international donors project
management and reporting requirements
Effective dissemination instruments, including the popular Economic Review journal

Access to modern economic literature and various sources of socio-economic data
Source: Polishchuk 2008.
UNDP analysis revealed constraints and

challenges to developing an effective system of
statistics in Uzbekistan. Therefore, UNDP
interventions supported national partners address
priority statistical areas. The 2006 MDG Report
revealed that the capacity for monitoring and
reporting MDG progress is generally fairthough
occasionally weakacross the core assessment
criteria (see Table 10). This has implications for
effective use of the MDGs, especially for efforts
to use them at the regional level.
It should be noted that the MDG Reports
targets and indicators can be considered binding
on policy makers only if these targets and indicators have been identified and sanctioned by the
government. However, the national MDG report
has not received official government approval,
despite relevant ministries having worked in close
cooperation with UNDP during the Reports
preparation.27 Nonetheless, the WISa document
approved by the governmentaligns its
objectives with the nationally determined MDGs.
4.1.2 PRO-POOR POLICY REFORMS TO

ACHIEVE MDG TARGETS
UNDP has supported the Government of
Uzbekistans emphasis on socio-economic
development through:

Support to national strategy development;

Policy advice and support to national
capacity development in key economic
reform areas; and
Building sustainable institutions to conceive
and implement initiatives on poverty
reduction and employment.
The main UNDP partner in these efforts has

been the Center for Economic Research (CER).
UNDP and the Government of Uzbekistan
jointly established CER in 1999 in order to serve
as a major economic think tank with the mandate
to provide economic analyses, assessments,
forecasts and policy advice. The Center has its
roots in an earlier 1994 UNDP programme
(implemented at the request of the Uzbekistan
Government) aimed at assisting the country in
27. Government of Uzbekistan, Official Statistics in Uzbekistan: Institutional Basis, Quality and Access, Policy Brief #1,
Center for Economic Research, 2006.
21
macroeconomic policy analysis and training.

UNDP evaluated the CER project four times
between 1999 and 2003.28 All the evaluations
were positive about CER and its performance. In
2008, a report drew on previous evaluations and
examined the sustainability of the Center.29
Nearly ten years since its inception, the report
concluded, CER remains the primary think tank
in Uzbekistan. Beyond its high-quality outputs,
CER plays a major role in facilitating dialogue on
reform and development among a wide range of
stakeholders in Uzbekistans development,
including civil society, government, the international community and the private sector.
Moreover, an important part of the CER
mandate is to ensure that the public is informed
about policy and development issues. Box 4.1
illustrates CER assets and advantages.
Although a number of international and national
organizations utilize the services of CER, UNDP
and the Government of Uzbekistan are the
largest financial contributors. UNDP has
been examining ways to ensure the sustainability
of the Center, but a recent report commissioned
by UNDP notes CER cannot achieve sustainability without committed support from the
Government of Uzbekistan and international
development agencies. 30
Given the Centers strengths, it was natural that
UNDP used it to support the government design
its national development strategies. In 2003,
work began on the development of the
20042006 LSS, largely supported by the Asian
Development Bank, but drawing heavily on the
CER/UNDP paper Linking Macroeconomic
Policy and Poverty in Uzbekistan.31 The LSS
also benefited from the Economic Growth and
Poverty Reduction conference organized by CER
and UNDP. As a follow-up to the LSS, the
government, with the assistance of CER/UNDP,

The World Bank and ADB, prepared the 20082010 Welfare Improvement Strategy. As noted,
the Government of Uzbekistan adopted the
WIS as the main medium-term strategy in
Uzbekistan, and international development
agencies are using it as the basis for their
programmes and projects in the country. The
preparation of the WIS is an important step for
Uzbekistan, and UNDP support represents a
major contribution.
It should be noted, however, that UNDP support
to the development of the WIS should have
included the integration of more comprehensive
environmental, social and health sector factors,
and should have taken into account risks so that
complex planning could be carried out on an even
more solid basis. Other factors include a full
assessment of risks to implementation, as the
recent global economic downturn made clear. The
success of development strategies may be enhanced
by taking a holistic approach, incorporating issues
that may impact on the lives of the Uzbekistan
people. Additionally, given UNDP experience
with rural development, the WIS should have
emphasized the importance of investments in
rural areas to comprehensive development.
In addition to supporting the development of
comprehensive national development strategies,
UNDP has provided support in many key areas
of economic governance (e.g., strengthening
the system of customs administration; public
finance reform; and foreign trade and investment promotion).
These interventions were designed in response to
specific government requests and fall within the
overall theme of supporting government institutional and capacity development. They have
made important contributions in the areas
28. Polishchuk, 2003.

29. Polishchuk, 2008. Though the evaluation was released following the completion of the main ADR mission, it was incorporated into the analysis.
30. Polishchuk, 2008.
31. Government of Uzbekistan/Center for Economic Research and UNDP, Linking Macroeconomic Policy to Poverty
Reduction in Uzbekistan, Tashkent, 2005.
22
they address, and the government generally

appreciates them. However, such an approach
raises challenges for ensuring projects effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. First, despite a
projects efficiency and effectiveness, sustainability
may be lacking due to insufficient capacity
development. Second, the approach included
many short-term narrow projects rather than
long-term broader and more strategic
programmes. Third, UNDP has comparative
strengths in only a few of the economic
governance issues addressed. While this may be
due to the nature of Uzbekistans relationship
with the international community in recent years,
in future and where possible, UNDP needs to
develop relevant partnerships when interventions
go beyond its core competencies.
UNDP has also contributed to the policy debate
through the publication of National Human
Development Reports. Three have been published
in the period under review, examining key issues for
Uzbekistans development and widely distributed
in English, Russian and Uzbek.32
In addition, UNDP has made strong efforts to
systematically increase awareness and advocate
the policy relevance of the Human Development
paradigm (as well as the MDGs) to undergraduate
and postgraduate students, teachers and state officials
of Uzbekistans leading academic institutions.
This is being achieved through support to research
and the development of pedagogies and curriculums
to teach human development, train lecturers and
develop in-service training schemes.
4.1.3 LOCAL EMPLOYMENT PROMOTION
AND POVERTY-REDUCTION INITIATIVES
UNDP local poverty interventions focus on the
rural poor and provide services including micro-
finance, business advice services and community

development. The first measure of UNDP
involvement in this area is micro-financing,
which started at the end of 1990s in rural
Uzbekistan. Micro-financing projects were
gradually integrated into a more comprehensive
approach, jointly developed with the European
Union. Since 2007, UNDP has applied a
development strategy to strengthen regional and
local governance through two main projects:
Enhancement of Living Standards (ELS),

implemented in the Karakalpakstan, Namangan
and Fergana regions; and
The 20082010 Area Based Development
(ABD) project, implemented in the
Karakalpakstan and Kashkadarya regions.
The experiences gained through the ELS and

ABD projects are unique in the Uzbekistan context.
The projects approaches included: fomenting
regional and local development strategies using
improved data collection methods and techniques
for mapping living standards; introducing civil
society and self-help schemes to communities;
generating and diversifying income through rural
and urban micro-credits; and strengthening farmers
and other types of rural enterprises. Three project
evaluations have been undertaken. The first two,
covering ELS interventions in Karakalpakstan33
and Namangan,34 were completed in 2006. The
third, covering Ferghana, was undertaken the
following year35 and shows that even if poverty is
increasingly concentrated in rural areas, it can
be addressed primarily through strengthening
local governance.
In ELS, UNDP involvement can be divided into
the following activities: increasing capacity for
32. UNDP, Uzbekistan National Human Development Reports, Education in Uzbekistan: Matching Supply and Demand
(20072008), Health for All: A Key Goal for Uzbekistan in the New Millennium (2006) and Decentralization and
Human Development (2005).
33. Harfs, J., An Evaluation of the EU/UNDP Project Enhancement of Living Standards in Karakalpakstan, European
Union, JuneJuly 2006.
34. Harfs, J., An Evaluation of the EU/UNDP Project Enhancement of Living Standards in Namangan, European Union,
JuneJuly 2006.
35. Tessier, 2007.
23
policy planning at the regional and local levels;

reinforcing the development capacity of local
governance; and creating and strengthening
pilot income-generation schemes. These actions
have resulted in: strengthening womens roles
in governance and businesses; creating social
investment projects, with emphasis on water,
electricity and heating systems at medical
centres, schools and private houses; and strengthening micro-enterprises. In terms of investment
projects for social infrastructure and microenterprises, ELS has achieved good results
many of which can be transferred to other
regions and districts. However, the ELS evaluations cited above pointed out that at the policy
level, the projects development impacts have not
been as strong (though work undertaken through
the ELS, such as poverty mapping and support to
poverty assessments, has contributed to the
development of the WIS).
Significant achievements have been made in
rural village social infrastructural projects: water,
gas and power lines have been constructed
applying principles of participatory planning,
co-funding and local joint construction efforts.
In addition to concrete achievements (e.g.,
construction projects), the activities unified
communities, and local stakeholders have been
extremely satisfied with joint achievements. The
efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of such
projects have been satisfactory. In most cases, the
social infrastructure investments have concerned
local schools, medical centres and all or most
households in the community. These investments
have been prioritized by the communities and
then agreed to by UNDP, after which joint
preparatory phases followed. In all project sites
visited, local communities are planning to continue
with a similar approach but with new and
additional development and investment objectives.
This ADR and the evaluation conducted in the
Ferghana region came to comparable conclusions
regarding similar project activities.
The contribution of these interventions goes
beyond those financed by the projects. The
institutions established under these interventions
24
have been successful in facilitating the replication

of the approaches in neighbouring communities.
Moreover, UNDP has facilitated additional resource
mobilization to fund additional interventions.
UNDP has also contributed actively in these
regions by launching a micro-financing project
for the local poor and by providing financing and
support to local small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) and agricultural organizations. The repayment of micro-credits has varied
from 95 to 100 percent in different communities.
Unfortunately, in recent years the microfinancing assets have reached their limits in all
regions, despite the continued demand for loans.
Hence, it would be advisable to prioritize
between two concepts: group-financing with
group-responsibility for the loan, or individual
crediting with individual collateral. The former is
used mostly by the poorest and most vulnerable
groups, and is therefore preferable when assets
are close to the limit. In addition, capitalizing on
group experience tends to minimize risk.
However, the concept requires more input and
managerial capacity than the latter. Individual
crediting is typically used by those who, due to
their individual collateral ability, are close to
qualifying for commercial loans.
It is important for UNDP to increase partnerships
within its private sector development activities.
The most suitable partner with full coverage at
the country level is the Chamber of Commerce
and Industry (CCI). CCI maintains both regional
offices and district-level information and
resources centres. Although UNDP and the CCI
already work together, increasing collaboration
during planning and implementation will improve
the quality of projects and other activities, and
will avoid overlap between the two organizations.
UNDP would be able to concentrate on focused
advice and consultancy, and on technical and
social questions; CCI would foster improved
conditions for entrepreneurship and business
development, concentrating on economic issues
in joint problem-areas. Both organizations have
simultaneously carried out similar and partially
overlapping activities.
Similarly, UNDP has not taken advantage of preexisting expertise in districts that have local or
regional educational institutes. For example,
though UNDP took responsibility for the
comprehensive and continuous training of
selected target groups, local partnerships would
have increased efficiency, effectiveness and
quality. In addition, focusing on preparing groups
of trainers is a more efficient approach than
individually
training
all
participants.
Exacerbating these issues, UNDP information
centres often lacked appropriate training
materials written in Uzbek. ELS and ABD
projects were weak or lacking in strengthening
district and local level institutional capacities or
educational structures (see Section 5.2). This
element was given scant attention in the 2007
ELS evaluation. Either the projects themselves
or intensified partnerships could have improved
this situation.
UNDPparticularly through ELS and ABD
projectssupported local SMEs improve their
production technologies, demonstrate new
modes of production and add value to products
within local poverty initiatives. From a development point of view, the main objectives were to
demonstrate and encourage local entrepreneurship and SMEs in rural businesses. It is
important, however, that UNDP improve
conditions for business development rather than
directly supporting production investments or
competition distortion.36 Support to local SMEs
could be further improved through the introduction of lessons learned and best practices from
other regions and districts.
Regional and local authorities in Uzbekistan

could benefit from a comparative analysis of how
efforts used by the ABD concept to strengthen
local governance compare to alternatives UNDP
promotes in different countries (e.g., direct
community support, local government support
and decentralized sector approaches). These
approaches may vary in different regions in
Uzbekistan due to different ethnographic and
historic reasons, as well as to the composition of
natural resources and risks. This analysis would
strengthen the base of UNDP involvement at the
regional and local levels.
4.2 FOSTERING DEMOCRATIC

GOVERNANCE
The 20042009 country programme document
identified two outcomes related to fostering
democratic governance for UNDP contribution
(see Table 11). UNDP contribution to the first
national goal is also examined in section 4.3
on environment. UNDP interventions in this
area have evolved beyond these two areas to
include public administration reform, information and communications technologies, and
support to parliament.
4.2.1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
AND CIVIL SERVICE REFORM
Since 2000, public administration and civil
service reform are among the key development
areas and outcomes of UNDP contribution. The
activities began with the development of
information networks and improvements to
administrative procedures with information and
Table 11. Fostering democratic governance: expected results

CPD outcome 1
Enhanced legal framework, monitoring and support mechanisms are in place for
the implementation of the United Nations human rights instruments
CPD outcome 2
Enabling environment for civil society to participate actively in development processes
36. In field visits, the ADR team noted some cases where UNDP-provided grants distorted the market for credit and impacted
competition (e.g., in the bio-pest control and pasta-making projects).
25
communication technologies (see section 4.2.2).

Some of the major issues tackled include human
resources management, human development,
MDGs, diplomatic and consular services, local
governance, business administration, public
administration and the mainstreaming of the
cross-cutting issues of gender and human rights.
The key recipients have included the Ministry
for Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy, the
University of World Economy and Diplomacy,
the State Academy for State and Public
Construction and the Higher School of Business.
In recent years, the emphasis in public administration and civil service reform has been on
training public sector management issues and
disciplines through master classes, workshops
and study tours. These efforts continuously
engaged UN, regional and international experts
for training and encouraging government and
civil society partnerships. Though UNDP acted
responsively to governments proposals, some
projects lacked basic analyses and studies that
clarify problem areas, and included direct
training rather than more sustainable capacity
development activities.
The European Union Border Management
Programme for Central Asia/Drug Action
Programme in Central Asia (BOMCA/
CADAP), the main regional programme UNDP
has been involved in, is the most systematic
development process identified by the ADR
team in the area of public administration reform.
It is crucial to enhancing border security and
facilitating legal trade and transit. The pressure
on these issues will increase strongly in the
future, as will the development process. In this
respect, the role of UNDP has and will be vital,
and should remain among the most prioritized
areas of UNDP involvement. A key challenge,
however, will be to ensure adequate linkages
between this programme and UNDP support for
customs legislation development.
Stakeholders, particularly at ministries, have been

satisfied with training courses and events and
consider UNDP work efficient and effective.
Nevertheless, prior to undertaking a development intervention there has been a lack of
institutional assessments, systematic training and
other needs assessments. Without these assessments and gap analyses, little of the training will
have long-lasting or sustainable results and
impacts (see section 5.2). Moreover, though it
was seldom the case, it would have been logical to
include both policy- and strategy-level reforms
and practical human resources development
measures into most development processes.
4.2.2 INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGIES/E-GOVERNANCE
UNDP contributed to more effective use of
information and communications technologies
(ICT) across government, parliament and
the private sector. In 2000, UNDP started
UzSciNet,37 an initiative to promote Internet
use in Uzbekistan. The initiative had the
following goals:

Provide free access to the Internet for the

Academy of Sciences in Tashkent and two
pilot provinces (core target group), as well as
for students and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) using an enhanced Internet
backbone and data transport system;
Provide training in the use of information
technology;
Promote a better awareness of Uzbekistan, its
research and development potential, and its
cultural values to the worldwide Internet
community; and
Create a semi-commercial Internet Service
Provider, which would operate self-sustainably.
From 2000 to 2004, the UzSciNet project was

also supported by the Open Society Institute.
Although the UNDP project was closed in 2008,
37. Formally known as Capacity-building for Internet Technologies Development and Promotion in Uzbekistan.
26
UzSciNet continues to operate. Currently,

UzSciNet connects 283 local area networks in
84 schools, 62 universities, 29 research institutions, 2 NGOs, 12 medical institutions, 8 cultural
organizations, 38 international organizations
(including various UNDP projects), 13 governmental and 35 organizations of other types.
Approximately 50 percent of the connected
organizations are outside Tashkent, in 14 provincial towns, where UzSciNet has its Points of
Presence. The project also provided technical
support, ICT training and interventions in the
fields of telemedicine and distance education.
Since 2005, UNDP has been closely working
with the ICT Council of the Cabinet of
Ministers (the highest body in Uzbekistans ICT
field) through its ICT Policy (ICTP) project.
The purpose of the project is to assist the
Government of Uzbekistan formulate and
implement ICT for development policy. In
the pursuit of its goals, ICTP is engaged in
a number of activities, grouped into several
broad directions:
Building its strategic consultations on studies

and research covering areas such as ICT
development in Uzbekistan, copyright in
information technology and analysis of
Uzbekistans progress in implementing the
decisions of the World Summits on the
Information Society;
Helping government agencies, academic
institutions, local communities and the
public explore the potential of ICTs to
achieve development goals through pilot
initiativesincluding the E-government
pilot project, the .uz Domain Zone project,
the establishment of electronic digital
signature registration centres, the enhancement of the governmental portal,38 the
introduction of a UzCDL computer literacy
certification system, and support to the eGovernance Competency Center examination of government information systems;
Developing capacities through information

technology training, seminars and round
tables, and developing educational and
promotional materials. Recent examples of
activities in this area include a seminar and
the handbook Intellectual Property Rights for
Software in Uzbekistan, a number of regional
trainings for government officials on egovernance, and the Information Technologies
textbook for university students;
Raising awareness of the advantages of ICTs
among the general population through the
development and provision of: access to
national Internet-based resources on topics
including cultural, economic, and social
issues; and encouraging engagement in ICT
issues through a quiz conducted on
Taraqqiyot Sari,39 a televised educational
programme dedicated to ICT;
Encouraging and creating a platform for
close partnerships and open dialogue on
ICT-related issues among government
decision makers, the private sector, the
international community and civil society.
This is achieved through annual national
ICT summits, regular meetings, seminars,
and conferences; and
Enhancing public and private partnerships in
the framework of the IT Association of
Uzbekistan, an initiative advanced by ICTP
and supported by the government. The
framework currently brings together approximately 50 company-members representing
the education, hardware and software, and
telecommunication sectors.
In addition to these activities, UNDP has worked

to integrate ICT into other projects where
appropriate. For example, an e-docflow system
has been introduced to the Ministry of Economy.
As a result, during 2007, the Ministry was able to
streamline the work of key departments and
accelerate correspondence processing. At the
38. See www.gov.uz.

39. Towards the Development.
27
Box 4.2 Electronically submitting tax reports and financial statements

UNDP implemented the Improving Tax Administration in Uzbekistan project, which focused on furthering the
introduction of up-to-date information technologies into tax departments activities. This lead to considerable
increases in the effectiveness and output of information collection and processing.
The Science Information Centre for New Technologies (under the State Tax Committee of the Republic of
Uzbekistan) developed a software package to electronically receive taxpayer reporting and financial
statements. Its launch was initiated in the second quarter of 2006.
The main advantages of submitting reports and statements in electronic format include reducing the time
required to prepare and submit statements; enhancing the efficiency of updating forms; minimizing errors
during statement preparation; and decreasing statement receipt labour requirements.
A gradual launch of the software package to electronically receive taxpayers reporting and financial
statements has expanded to the Tashkent and Andijan provinces, and to the city of Tashkent. By the end of
2007, 7,538 entrepreneurial entities had their electronic digital signature in the capital, and more than 20,641
tax calculations were submitted via the Internet. Expanding information technology in taxation administration
will decrease businesses and the publics expenses and increase the transparency of the taxation process.
Higher School of Business for public sector

managers studying and working in the region,
UNDP piloted a project on the use of ICT for
medical diagnosis of poor people in remote areas
and developed an online legislation database. In
addition, UNDP has been supporting the
Parliaments ICT development and provided
technologies to government academies. See Box 4.2
for an example of the successful use of ICT.
While UNDP ICT projects and activities have

addressed important problem areas and have
contributed positively to living standards in the
country, more attention should be paid to further
strategic prioritization of future activities, and
this prioritization should be based on clear
selection criteria. Although UNDP responded to
the changing context in revising its ICTP project
in early 2008, it is important to continue to
monitor changes in the national ICT strategy.
Such monitoring is necessary to meet national
needs and to continue strategic discussions
between the government and the UN system to
formulate the UNDP role.
4.2.3 STRENGTHENING THE WORK
OF THE PARLIAMENT
In recent years, UNDP has been closely collaborating with the Parliament. The main areas of
UNDP contribution include gender, ICT, and
28
legislation drafting (providing consultative

support on draft laws and oversight activities of
parliament committees).
The Parliament recognizes challenges to the
sustainability of UNDP interventions. For
example, in the area of legislation draftingand
specifically in the case of tax reformthere has
been a lack of support after the project cycle. This
is typically due to legislative reform processes
lasting longer than was anticipated during the
planning phase of the project, resulting in the
project cycle ending before the legislative reform
is accomplished. Though the outcomes of
UNDP-provided ICT support have proved to be
efficient and effective, parliament was critical of
the lack of management support. Despite UNDP
interventions lack of an adequate exist strategy,
the government will continue to finance IT
support for the Parliament.
UNDP recognizes that parliament could improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of some of the
training events it conducts. Additionally, partners
need to address projects length and division of
responsibilities. There is the need to more clearly
link activities to parliamentary policy- and
strategy-level processes, and to strengthen and
improve the cooperation and performance of
continuous and daily operations. So far, gap
analyses and assessments of development needs

and targets have not been used in these projects
and activities.
4.2.4 HUMAN RIGHTS
UNDP human rights interventions have focused
on: awareness-raising and developing a stronger
understanding of national legislation and
international human rights standards; and
strengthening the quality of available legal
services (especially to the most vulnerable
groups) through the development of legal professionals capacities. UNDP efforts to promote
human rights have also addressed gender
concerns (see Section 5.1).
In partnership with other organizations, UNDP
had made important contributions to awarenessraising of human rights issues. Rather than
having a specific human rights project, a human
rights component was included in the
Development Services Support Programme late
in 2002 in order to mainstream human rights
into all programme components.40 In line with
the UNDP democratic governance focus, it was
considered appropriate (in light of the
20052009 Programme Framework) to continue
working towards strengthening national capacities
in three major areas:
1. Integrating international human rights
obligations into the national legal framework;
2. Raising awareness of international human
rights principles; and
3. Enhancing the populations access to justice.
UNDP had been particularly successful in
strengthening the capacity of the Legal Clinic of
the University of the World Economy and
Diplomacy140 people with limited access to
legal aid received pro bono legal services in the
clinic. In Tashkent, seven training programmes
provided the opportunity for more than 90 local

communities activists to increase their awareness
of legal issues. However, there is a potential to
improve on-site trainings and projects focused on
strengthening the media. In addition, the
planning of study tours could more effectively
introduce foreign best practices to a larger
number of Legal Clinics students and staff.
In general, UNDP activities aimed at strengthening the Legal Clinic had successfully facilitated
the poor and vulnerables access to justice by
enabling national partners to provide highquality professional legal consultancy services on
civil law. However, this assistance was mainly
provided by one legal clinic, which was limited in
its activities by the Civil and Economic Law and
did not address criminal casesthose most
frequently connected with human rights
violations. Despite this shortcoming, more than
500 representatives of law-enforcement, civil
society institutions and political parties were
trained in human rights issues. Quarterly human
rights meetings for lawyers have turned into a
forum where they can openly discuss concerns
and exchange opinions.
Building on the success of this project, UNDP
plans to develop the capacities of existing and
newly established legal clinics through training
student lawyers to provide legal services; increasing the quality of student lawyers representation
services; modifying training manuals and
publications in order to improve the clinics
curriculum; and introducing the clinics
educational materials to legal schools and the
legal departments of national universities.41
UNDP Uzbekistan considers it important to pay
attention to the support of the courts, lawenforcement and lawyers in general in order to
improve their knowledge and skills of habeas
corpus procedures (especially their knowledge of
international standards).42
40. Interviews with the Good Governance Unit, ADR team, summer 2008.
41. UNDP, Good Governance Unit Strategic Note, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2007.
42. Ibid.
29
Table 12. Energy and environment for sustainable development: expected results
CPD outcome
Obligations under international environmental conventions and agreements are fulfilled

through improved effectiveness of environment management and development of clean
energy sources
Source: Government of Uzbekistan and UNDP,Country Programme Action Plan 20052009, Uzbekistan.
By publishing international human rights instruments, UNDP successfully raises national

partners and the general publics awareness of the
documents. However, this assistance sometimes
lacks momentum. For example, the National
Human Rights Centre requested UNDP
assistance in human rights education campaign
dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but
UNDP was slow to support these efforts.
The 20042009 country programme set only one

environmental outcome for UNDP contribution
(see Table 12). The outcome as stated in the
CPDfulfilment of obligations under international environmental conventions and
agreementsalso included measures for its
achievement: improving the effectiveness of
environmental management and developing
clean energy resources.
UNDP has also successfully implemented activities aimed at women migrant workers capacitybuilding in the fields of human and migrant
workers rights.43 These activities received increased
attention by governmental and non-governmental
organizations. UNDP has built on previous
accomplishments by extending these activities to
include migrant workers families in four regions of
Uzbekistan (Tashkent, Jizzak, Ferghana, and in the
Republic of Karakalpakstan).44
4.3.1 FRAMEWORKS AND STRATEGIES

FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
4.3 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT FOR

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
In the 2000s, UNDP has been actively involved
in the area of environment and energy in
Uzbekistan. Typical UNDP involvement has
been in direct response to government requests.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has
been the most important international partner in
funding these activities. Lessons learned from
previous interventions in the environment and
energy fields (as described in the 1999 environment cluster evaluation) formed the basis for
UNDP involvement since the year 2000.45
UNDP identified the desiccation of the Aral Sea

as one of the major man-made ecological
disasters of the 20th century. However, it noted
that while priority attention needs to be given to
problems surrounding the Aral Sea disaster,
Uzbekistan faces other critical environmental
problems related to water quality and quantity,
agricultural land use, desertification, industrial
and municipal pollution and loss of biodiversity.
The first UNDP country programme
(19971999) recognized these as the main
environmental problem areas in Uzbekistan. This
led to large and comprehensive policy and
strategy work, and integrated Uzbekistan into
international environmental processes through
the ratification of various international conventions and agreements.
UNDP involvement in the environment field
has, in principle, followed these strategic and
policy-level actions. This has led UNDP to
support the creation of the Environmental Atlas
43. See Section 5.1, UNDP Success Stories: Project aimed at the promotion of the rights of women migrant workers, part II.
44. Ibid.
45. Tortell, Garratt and Khomenko, 1999.
30
of Uzbekistan.46 It describes and illustrates the

state of the environment, though there are few
statistics regarding environmental trends and
tendencies. This Atlas could create a basis for the
National Environment Action Plan.47 The
Action Plan could then be used as a basis for
fostering investments into the cluster, as recent
Joint Environmental Programmes I and II of the
European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the European Union with The
World Bank, and the Nordic Environment
Finance Corporation in Central Asia have
successfully proved.
The Environmental Atlas originated from the
Enhancement of Environmental Indicators
Database project, which used a geographic
information system application to monitor the
state of environment. UNDP was one of the
main contributors to a recent publication based
on these indicators: Environmental Profile of
Uzbekistan 2008 Based on Indicators.48
According to it, national environmental experts
consider the following prioritized list to be the
most pressing ecological problems in Uzbekistan:
1. Irrational use and pollution of water resources;
2. Imperfect waste management practices;
3. Air pollution;
4. Biodiversity conservation;
5. Climate change; and
6. Desertification and land degradation.
These challenges should guide and direct not
only future project activities, but also environmental investments.
A third recently implemented project, Capacity
Building for the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM), included elements on: capacity-building

of the designated national authority; legalization
of carbon transactions in the domestic context; an
assessment of the CDM potential in key sectors;
building capacities for legal and economic
appraisal of CDM projects; and technical
assistance for CDM pipeline development. At
present, one project is already pipelined to be
included into the UNDP MDG Carbon Facility.
These activities are excellent examples of projects
and activities that started or originated from a
policy- and strategy-level approach, and then
moved through planning and implementation
phases to concrete investments. The most
common bottleneck in approaching energy and
environmental problems is the lack of concrete
investments and securing appropriate funding.
The most sustainable course for solving
Uzbekistans accelerating environmental problems
is to follow a logical path that moves from
policy-level analysis to a full project cycle for
solving the problem, which in turn leads to
concrete investment.
Unfortunately, less promising examples also exist.
The cluster evaluation in 1999 concluded that
UNDP involvement in the Aral Sea was very
limited and unsustainable. The latest UNDP
involvement is similarly problematic. The issue
has had very limited inputs: the main input was
to assess the effectiveness of national and
international efforts focused on improving the
ecological and socio-economic situation in the
Aral Sea region. The desertification of the region
has remained the largest single natural catastrophe
in Central Asia, and donor effortsincluding
those of UNDPhave remained too limited.
Though involvement may have been satisfactory
from efficiency and effectiveness perspectives,
from a results and impacts perspective, efforts are
far from sustainable.
46. Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee for Land Resources, Geodesy, Cartography and State Cadastre and UNDP,
Environmental Atlas of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, 2008.
47. Government of Uzbekistan, National Environment Action Plan, 1996.
31
4.3.2 EFFECTIVE WATER GOVERNANCE

UNDP has had a long-lasting involvement in the
water supply, sanitation and health project in
strengthening and management of the project
implementation unit of the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).
This large, IBRD-loan funded project has been
implemented through governmental cost
sharing. The UNDP role has been remarkable
and leading, particularly after 2005 when IBRD
withdrew its physical presence from Uzbekistan.
According to stakeholders interviewed in July
and August 2008, the project can be considered
efficient, effective and sustainable, as without this
project the rural populations drinking water
resources would have shrunk dramatically.
UNDP is playing a key role in supporting the
government prepare a national integrated water
resources management and water efficiency plan
for Uzbekistan. This plan comprises strategic
elements, an action plan on developing efficient
water resources management, and guidance for
solving related problems. The next steps are to
strengthen the human and technical capacities
of relevant regional and domestic partnerships,
and to support integration of water issues into
the relevant policy frameworks. Stakeholders
consider this project to have been successful
and satisfactory.
According to stakeholders interviews conducted
between July and August 2008, the most
probable environmental crises will occur within
water resources and management and irrigation
issues. UNDP could take a leading role in
developing preventive measuresboth for
potential crises and for the conflicts that will
result from these crises.
Nevertheless, previous lessons learned and the
2005 Regional Human Development Report
suggest that these issues should also be addressed
in subregional and international contexts. This is
also stressed in the 2008 Environmental Profile

of Uzbekistan.49 It is critically important to
broaden the approach and integrate it with
neighbouring countries as soon as possible. This
could serve as a foundation for creating early
warning systems and other relevant monitoring
systems, in addition to in-country concrete
investment plans and programmes aimed at
solving water, irrigation and energy related
problems. UNDP efforts in other regions and
subregions could be also used. For example, UNDP,
the United Nations Environment Programme
and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe approach to environment
and security in the Caucasustransforming risks
into cooperation50could provide ideas for
developing early warning and other monitoring
systems in the subregion and in Uzbekistan.
4.3.3 ACCESS TO SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY SERVICES
To a large extent, energy-related projects and
activities differ from environment projects.
Uzbekistan is very rich in energy resources,
particularly coal, hydropower, oil, natural gas and
uranium. These energy sources have been managed
by state-owned companies, without the participation of donor agencies. However, Uzbekistan
has great potentiality for renewable energy
sources, such as solar and biomass.
As Uzbekistan is relatively energy rich, the issue
of energy efficiency has gained only limited
attention in recent decades. In the early 2000s,
UNDP became involved in preparing an energy
efficiency strategy for the country. Since then,
energy projects have had a demonstration
character, introducing new concepts of energy
efficiency and renewable energy solutions to
Uzbekistan. These demonstration projects have
recently included somewhat loose linkages to
strategic, policy or legislative frameworks.
Typically, they are responsive and aimed at
sustainably solving problems through the
49. Ibid.
50. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United Nations Environment Programme and UNDP,
Environment and security. Transforming Risks into Cooperation. The Case of the Southern Caucasus.
32
demonstration of new innovations or applications of modern technologies. The two most

recent UNDP projects are a biogas plant,
demonstrating the conversion into energy of
biogas from animal waste and sludge in a
Tashkent farm, and the improvement of rural
health clinics energy efficiency.
However, the biogas project cannot be considered
successful, as it lacks an economic basis for
existence and sustainable performance. It assists a
very limited number of rural people and lacks
markets for organic waste disposal. Even
unsubsidized market pricing for biogas would
not make the pilot economically competitive.
Thus, the effectiveness and sustainability of the
pilot are low. These problems do not result from
weak planning of the project, but are reflective of
renewable energy projects Uzbekistan context.
As of the time of the ADR, no institutional or
legislative reforms supporting renewable energy
resources or use have commenced. The energy
sector is still dominated by two state-owned
companies (Uzbekenergo and Uzbekneftegaz),
and there is a lack of market mechanisms
regarding tariffs or energy-use measurement.
A 2007 UNDP Policy Brief51 describes the
structures and needs for comprehensive reform.
However, recent UNDP project activities have
not utilized the conclusions of the Policy Brief in
project planning or implementation.
Energy efficiency demonstration projects in rural
health clinics and medical centres have gained
strong support from various stakeholders, and
would operate sustainably if combined with
comprehensive approaches for developing and
improving clinics working conditions and facilities.
Unfortunately, these approaches are either
missing or lagging behind the energy efficiency
component. Partial solutions or improvements
seldom lead to success or long-term sustainability.
This also emphasizes the need to develop multisector based approaches, as though energy
efficiency solutions are important, they are rarely

the exclusive solution to problems.
The 2007 Policy Brief on energy topics indicates
the challenges and increasing needs of
Uzbekistan to continue its development work in
energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
The Brief highlights the choices for required
economic and institutional reforms. An increasing
number of donor agencies will be interested in
working in these fields, including international
and private sector financial institutions and
banks. As UNDP has a very good reputation and
presence in many rural districts, there will be
excellent chances for partnerships with increasing
numbers of donors.
UNDP should consider its comparative strengths
in the energy sector development process and
choose between demonstrating new technologies
and concepts; placing emphasis on comprehensive approaches (e.g., combining social and
medical needs at the local level); or concentrating
its efforts on strengthening economic and
institutional reforms in the energy sector by
linking them to general tax reform (including
tariffs development).
The MDG Carbon Facility has just commenced
its availability in Uzbekistan as an option to
develop energy-related projects within the
framework the Kyoto Protocol. The Facility also
provides options for international funding within
the energy sector. It is too early to assess the
Facility, as only one pilot project has been tested
so far. However, the concept follows lessons
learned from other countries and may eventually
provide opportunities for participating enterprises
and UNDP. In Uzbekistan, the Facility works
closely with the Ministry of Economy, the
Designated National Authority for CDM in
Uzbekistan. Effective use of the Facility will
require reforms in the economic and institutional
aspects of the energy sector.
51. UNDP, Options for Continuing Energy Reforms in Uzbekistan, Policy Brief, 2007.
33
4.3.4 SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT

TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION AND
LAND DEGRADATION
UNDP has been conducting long-term, highly
specialized activities aimed at achieving
ecosystem stability on degraded land, particularly
in the Karakalpakstan and Kuzylkum provinces.
The objective of these activities has been to test
community-driven rehabilitation of the degraded
desert and semi-desert lands, in order to
determine if it is more cost-effective than the
current state-managed regime. The UNDP
approach has been to increasingly involve the
local population in protection activities by
providing economic incentives for incomegeneration from trees and other vegetation. GEF
is the main international partner in this process.
MDG 7 (ensure environmental sustainability),
and its sub-goal (achieve a significant reduction
in the rate of loss of the proportion of land area
covered by forest), suggest a strong imperative for
this type of project. However, as the last nationwide inventory of forests stems from 1986, there is
urgent need to undertake a nationwide inventory
and assessment of forests, trees and land.
The 1999 evaluation of the UNDP environmental
and energy portfolio revealed that UNDP had
given very little attention or funding to the land
degradation and desertification issue.52 This
tendency has continued, though the problems
have accelerated. UNDP must decide whether to
carry out activities with a specialized focus on
community-level protection or increase its
presence and develop its involvement or to
withdraw from it. The Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the
specialized UN agency in this area, is actively
increasing its involvement in Uzbekistan and
could bring its global expertise to this field. FAO
would most likely need the expertise of UNDP in
developing the appropriate working approach
and its assistance in creating an appropriate

funding base.
FAO could also be an important partner, helping
to successfully finish UNDP involvement in the
2007 livestock project implemented in the
Tashkent region. As UNDP does not have a
comparative strength in these fields or the
appropriate expertise to support these processes
in the long term, it is implementing the project in
partnership with the Center for International
Cooperation53 under the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Israel, which is providing extensive
expertise and training opportunities within the
project framework. The project includes a veterinary station development component, for which
FAO and the EU could provide appropriate
expertise regarding sustainable results and
development process impacts. The problems
addressed in the UNDP project are important
and even necessaryto enable the implementation
of Uzbekistans plans to broaden its range of
production and exports of agricultural products.
4.3.5 CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE
USE OF BIODIVERSITY
In this field, UNDP has closely followed the
findings and recommendations of the 1999
evaluation of the UNDP environment and
energy portfolio. All activities have a clear and
concise linkage to the biodiversity strategy and
policy development of Uzbekistan, the protection
network has been gradually increased according
to plans, and progress has been made at fulfilling
relevant international conventions and agreements.
Since most of the protected areas in Uzbekistan
were established in the 1970s and 1980s, UNDP
has recently focused on updating the needs for
biodiversity protection.54
UNDP has been a principal supporter in the area
of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,
mainly in close cooperation with GEF. Stakeholders
52. In section 3.3, the report notes that efforts to control the process of desertification have been puny and in the rush to
find solutions, cause and effect were not always properly matched.
53. MASHAV.
34
interviewed gave very strong support to cooperation

between UNDP and GEF, and recent final and
mid-term evaluations of the projects have
reflected satisfactory or highly satisfactory results
for implemented projects.55
Since 2000, UNDP has concentrated biodiversity
conservation efforts on two projects and
processes, namely to the establishment of the
Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere reserve and on
the conservation of the Tugai-forest in
Karakalpakstan. These are the only new major
conservation areas established since the
independence of Uzbekistan.
The future of the Biosphere reserves and
protected areas is dependent on how well the
management and funding of these areas can be
organized, and on the successful development of
linkages to nature-based and ecological tourism.
The initial establishment has been successful, and
the measures taken have been effective and
relevant. However, in the short term the reserves
should be changed from a supply-orientation to a
controlled market-orientation, which requires a
clear and concise development approach. This
will be among the main challenges to the
projects survival after the project-cycle, as the
2007 Terminal Evaluation report of the UNDPGEF project Establishment of NuratauKyzylkum Biosphere Reserve Project as a Model
for Biodiversity Conservation in Uzbekistan
presents. These issues mainly concern the
sustainability of the projects, and can be most
appropriately assessed in the long term.
In stakeholder discussions, the only critical
comments regarding biodiversity projects and
activities concerned the lack of participatory
approaches in projects preparatory phases.
Despite a concentration of expertise in the
relevant scientific and other professional organizations in Uzbekistan, this expertise is not
sufficiently used in project preparations. This
relates to biodiversity projects, land degradation
and sand stabilization activities. Nevertheless, the

main concern is the weak capacity to monitor the
state of the environment: there are neither
sufficient technical nor human capacities in these
fields. This worry is shared not only by all
relevant organizations in the environment field,
but also by most stakeholders interviewed. The
majority of stakeholders claimed that the highest
profile crises that will influence the future of
Uzbekistaneven in the mid-termwill be
environmental in nature.
Uzbekistan needs more environmental projects,
and emphasis should be placed on accelerating
investments in monitoring capacities, strengthening the national and local institutes capacity to
monitor problems, and involving local populations
in problem solving. This requires closer involvement with international financial institutions and
the EU, and adding value to existing UNDP and
GEF environmental development projects.
UNDP has a clear coordinating role and position
in this process.
4.4 RESPONDING TO HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS has been among the core themes
during the last two UNDP country programmes.
Most of the activities and interventions have
been funded from the Global Fund to fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund).
In this section, the UNDP contribution is
analysed in this section in a chronological order:
HIV/AIDS prevention as a component of the
20002004 Development Services Support
Programme, and further assistance as a
component of the 20052009 programme
cycle (through the support of projects funded by
the Global Fund and the Long Term Joint
Capacity-building for AIDS control in Central
Asia project).
In January 2002, the Promotion of an Effective
Response to HIV/AIDS/STI and Drug Abuse
project came under the responsibility of the
55. Bellamy 2007; Edwards 2008.
35
HIV/AIDS component of the Development

Services Support Programme. The project was
financed on a cost-sharing basis by the members
of the UN Theme Group on HIV/AIDS.
UNAIDS provided assistance in the form of
Programme Acceleration Funds. The Ministry of
Health was the executing agency, and the
Uzbekistan Republican Aids Centre was the
implementing agency.
On the national level, the multisectoral response
to HIV/AIDS was the development of the
National Strategic Plan (NSP), developed by the
Inter-ministerial Working Group on Strategic
Planning. Progress towards its development and
formulation was to be measured by several
intermediate and final outputs. Outputs were
achieved, although with delay.56 The existing
legislation was reviewed, and proposals for
amendments related to approaches towards
vulnerable groups were included in the NSP. In
July 2002, a draft of the Country Coordination
Mechanism (CCM) was developed and submitted
to the government and approved in May of 2003.
As a result of component activities, the CCM
and the Regional Coordination Councils on
HIV/AIDS Prevention were established.
Since the main focus of UNDP actions to fight
HIV/AIDS were policies that change behaviour,
the project57 aimed at increasing the general
populations awareness by advocating the principles of AIDS prevention. Progress was measured
by the following outputs:

Workshops for Mahalla leaders;

Training of specialists on media and public
information campaigning;
Design, production and distribution of
information, education and communication
materials;

Introduction of HIV/AIDS issues into

school curricula; and
Involvement of NGOs.
The output performance of UNDP was

evaluated as very high.58 However, the impact on
strengthening the multilateral response and
collaborative activities was delayed by about one
year due to late government approval of the NSP
and CCM. The extent to which component
outputs (NSP, CCM) attained the objectives
(strengthening multisectoral response to
HIV/AIDS) was limited, which had repercussions on subsequent component activities and
outputs (i.e., sectoral plans). However,
component initiatives aimed at intensifying
HIV/AIDS prevention activities and increasing
public awareness were effective.
The benefits received by target beneficiaries had
a wider, although limited, overall effect on larger
numbers of people. The project started to
generate positive results in regard to raising
public awareness. Government officials and
society began to accept and understand the main
principles and ideas of HIV/AIDS prevention,
whereas at project inception the prevailing
opinion was that because the country had low
rates of HIV/AIDS transmission, preventive
measures against HIV/AIDS were not a priority
issue. UNDP also contributed to strengthening
UN system cooperation through the activities
of the HIV/AIDS Thematic Group. With regard
to raising public awareness, close cooperation
among the component and its national partners
enhanced the technical capacities of: all
participating parties with government structures
related to the development and implementation
of the NSP and sectoral programmes; the
Uzbekistan Republican AIDS Centre and other
regional AIDS Centres; and NGOs and
community-based organizations.
56. UNDP, Ex Post Evaluation of UNDP Development Support Services Programme, February, 2005.
57. In January 2002, the previous UNDP project Promotion of an Effective Response to HIV/AIDS/STI and Drug Abuse
came under the responsibility of the HIV/AIDS component of the Development Services Support Programme.
58. UNDP, Ex Post Evaluation of UNDP Development Support Services Programme, February, 2005.
36
The activities carried out by UNDP can be

considered relevant, effective, sustainable and
responsive to the needs of the government and
population. However, the weaknesses can be
found in the lack of multisectoral approaches or
comprehensive strategy developmentrequired
if sustainable impacts are to be achieved. With
respect to partnerships, UNDP played a
constructive, though only supportive, role in
these activities.
4.4.1 FACILITATING THE NATIONAL
STRUGGLE AGAINST THE HIV/AIDS
EPIDEMIC: 2005 TO 2009
The UNDP role and activities with regards to
helping the Government of Uzbekistan combat
the HIV/AIDS epidemic are currently in accord
with the 2007 Welfare Improvement Strategy of
Uzbekistan.59 In partnership with UNAIDS and
other UN agencies,60 UNDP support to national
efforts to prevent the spread of the HIV/AIDS
epidemic continues to contribute to MDG 6. UNDP
support is facilitated through the implementation
of projects funded by Global Fund, and the Long
Term Joint Capacity-building for AIDS Control
in Central Asia programme.
The 20062010 Long term Joint CapacityBuilding for AIDS Control in Central Asia seeks
to increase national capacity in Kazakhstan, the
Kyrgyz republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for
project management and implementation, within
the specific area of HIV/AIDS control. These
project activities are implemented mainly through
the provision of capacity-building and fiduciary
services. UNDP Uzbekistan is a designated
international organization in Uzbekistan, represents
this project at the country level, and supports the
Ministry of Health structures and a National
Coordinator. The specific areas to which UNDP
provides capacity-building and support services are:
Fiduciary management;
Contracts administration;

Grants administration and monitoring

support; and
Procurement support.
The 2006
UNDP
National
Human
Development Report, prepared in close consultation with other UN agencies, provides a detailed
analysis of national strategies and international
assistance relating to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
In Karakalpakstan, UNDP assistance had been
provided to local authorities in preparation
of a regional tuberculosis project, which had
resulted in the preparation of a joint project
between United Nations Volunteers and UNDP,
with technical advice from the World Health
Organization (WHO).
Since 2005, UNDP has acted in a key and core
role within HIV/AIDS prevention in Uzbekistan.
However, it is too early to determine the sustainability of these activities, as there are weaknesses
in the national approach due to the lack of
comprehensive and multisector assessments of
the problem area. This restricts and diminishes
the results and impacts of the activities. However,
the effectiveness and relevance of the activities can
be considered to be satisfactory, and partnerships
with other donors have improved in recent years.
The tuberculosis project has brought about new
partnerships, such as with the United Nations
Volunteers, and this linkage may create solid
platforms for broadening future UNDP activities.
4.4.2 COLLABORATION WITH OTHER
INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES IN
CONNECTION TO COMBATING
THE HIV/AIDS EPIDEMIC
The UN Theme Group on HIV/AIDS had been
operational since 1996, and aims to strengthen
partnerships between the government, UN
agencies, bilateral donors and civil society. It has
been actively supporting the Government of
59. Government of Uzbekistan, Welfare Improvement Strategy, 2007.

60. UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNODC and WHO.
37
Uzbekistan prepare for the current National

Strategy on HIV/AIDS. The UN Theme Group
on HIV/AIDS has been chaired on rotational
basis by The World Bank, UNFPA, UNICEF,
the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime
(UNODC), and WHO. The UN Resident
Coordinator is in charge of the current management structure for UN support to the national
HIV/AIDS response.
The 2007 UN Country Team Retreat was
devoted to HIV/AIDS. In 2008, UNAIDS
facilitated a retreat for the Joint UN Theme
Group on HIV/AIDS, where UN agencies
agreed on the major priorities for UN support
and outlined benchmarks for the development of
an effective Joint UN Programme of Support on
HIV/AIDS in Uzbekistan.
According to interviews conducted by the ADR

team, the main challenges to this problem area
are: the lack of coordination on behalf of the
Resident Coordinator; lack of regular meetings
by the members of the Theme Group; lack of
follow up on decisions by members of the Theme
Group; and international agencies preference to
act acting separately based on their mandate,
which leads to duplications of effort. These
problems influence the effectiveness, relevance,
replicability and sustainability of the activities.
In addressing these challenges, only a comprehensive, thematic evaluation can determine
specific challenges, after which problem solving
can be planned. An Assessment of Development
Results is not the most appropriate tool to assess
such a complex problem area, yet it increases
partial understanding of the problems and
challenges from the UNDP perspective.
Box 4.3 Legislative framework for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in Uzbekistan
In August 1999, the Government of Uzbekistan adopted laws regarding the prevention of HIV/AIDS. The laws
regulate HIV/AIDS testing procedures, the safety and anonymity of medical examinations, social assistance to
HIV-positive people and AIDS patients, and ensures their right to humane treatment, free health care and
social security.61 In addition, termination of an employment contract or denial of recruitment or admission to
educational institutions based on HIV/AIDS status is prohibited.
The Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan had adopted the first strategy for combating the
spread of HIV/AIDS in 2003 (the strategy of 20032006). Beginning in 2003, the Commission on Emergency
Epidemiological Situations started operating in Uzbekistan. This inter-ministerial group, consisting of government ministries and agencies, was created in order to coordinate the system of prevention and combating
the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The second strategy for combating the spread of the epidemic, based on the countrylevel changes concerning HIV/AIDS, was adopted by the Government of Uzbekistan and covers the years
20072011. This programme, building on the results accomplished since 2003, aims at incorporating the
principles of UNAIDS that focus on the development of a tripartite structure; promote a single coordination
mechanism and a unified system of monitoring and evaluation; and address governmental and nongovernmental structures, the private sector, and international organizations.62
In 2005, the Ministry of Health approved preventive measures developed in accordance with public health
norms. They include voluntary, mandatory and compulsory HIV testing of patients.63
61. UNDP, Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis, 2006.
62. Government of Uzbekistan, National Strategy for Combating HIV/AIDS in the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2007-2011, 2006.
63. UNDP, Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis, 2006.
38
Chapter 5
CROSS-CUTTING THEMES
AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES
This chapter examines the key areas that cut
across the programming themes identified in the
previous chapter. Gender equality issues are
included, as the Uzbekistan country office has
made efforts to mainstream this issue in all its
work. In addition, the Terms of Reference state
that special attention should be paid to capacitybuilding, as this is central to UNDP. This chapter
will also include a discussion of select operational
issues that affect the UNDP contribution to
national development results, as well as the
UNDP role in facilitating more effective UN
system coordination.
UNDP Uzbekistan follows the practice of

including gender issues into project activities.
The following projects serve as good examples:
In the field of information and communication technologies, a special focus on rural

young women was made and the sub-activity,
TechAge Girls, was created to promote this
groups ICT skills and access to technologies;
The Enhancing Living Standards interventions, with their community mini-projects,
ensure that women are not only included in
beneficiary groups, but are also empowered
as decision makers when choosing where to
invest money; and
5.1 GENDER
UNDP gender interventions take the form of

supporting projects specifically focused on
womens empowerment and mainstreaming
gender into other UNDP projects. Direct
womens empowerment projects include
implementation support to the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women and promotion of women
migrant workers rights (see Box 5.1).64 The good
governance unit is responsible for both womens
empowerment and gender mainstreaming
interventions. In addition, both the UNDPsupported MDG Report and the National
Human Development Report utilize genderdisaggregated data, and typically have subchapters on gender issues and equal access of
women and men.65
UNDP Uzbekistan staff has made good use of

ICT to mainstream gender. The country office
created an intranet section on gender mainstreaming (including Internet links, tools, key
mainstreamed formats and documents, and
research data), and the country office intranet
blog includes a discussion of gender issues. The
following examples are of initiatives aimed at
gender mainstreaming at the national and
regional levels:
Educational projects have incorporated

gender training into the curricula of the
Academy of State Social Construction and
the University of World Economy and
Diplomacy legal clinic.
Gender mainstreaming sessions for the

Academy of State and Social Construction
for civil servants;
64. The Legislative and Institutional Capacity Development for Womens Empowerment in Uzbekistan project and the
Promotion of Women Migrant Workers Rights project.
65. UNDP, Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Progress Report on Implementation
of GAP 2007, UNDP Uzbekistan.
C H A P T E R 5 . C R O S S - C U T T I N G T H E M E S A N D O P E R AT I O N A L I S S U E S
39
Box 5.1 UNDP success stories: projects aimed at the promotion of the rights of women
migrant workers (Phase II)
The main objectives of this project are to improve human rights protection for women migrant workers and to
increase the quality of services they and victims of human trafficking receive from relevant government bodies
and NGOs.These objectives will be achieved through support to the involved actors (vulnerable women and
their families) in order to improve womens legal status, target the issues of employment and poverty
reduction, and contribute to the broader issue of protecting migrant workers rights. The main strategic
outcomes of the project will be in line with the WIS migration-related targets, such as substantial widening
of legal and socially protected labour migration and improvement of the registration and statistics of the
employed population, including the informal labour market and labour migration.
Informal migration from rural areas to large cities, particularly in Tashkent, is evident as the growing rural
population tries to compensate for limited non-agricultural employment opportunities by seeking temporary
and informal employment in cities. Government bodiessuch as the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection
and local departmentsand the Womens Committee of Uzbekistan, the national organ for the advancement
of women and promotion of womens rights, have tried to initiate new employment programmes in rural
areas, to develop small- and medium-sized businesses and to stimulate local community leaders to prevent
illegal migration.
Together with UNDP, a number of international agencies (e.g., the International Labour Organization, the
International Organization for Migration, UNFPA and UNODC) have launched several initiatives to raise
awareness of and combat human trafficking. As a result of these interventions, the Law of the Republic of
Uzbekistan on Countering Human Trafficking was passed in April, 2008.
Gender mainstreaming training for local

authorities in the Ferghana Valley, within the
UNDP Uzbekistan Enhancement of Living
Standards project; and
Training of trainers at the Womens Committees
central and regional branches.
The Extended Gender Theme Group includes

the ADB, the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, UNAIDS, UNDP,
UNFPA, UNICEF, UNODC, the UN Resident
Coordinator, WHO, and The World Bank.
In 20052006, the activity of the Theme Group
slowed down. Some joint activities were carried
out, including the 20062007 UN Joint
Programme on Promoting MDGs in Local
Communities. In 2008, UNDP initiated
additional Gender Theme Group activities,
the scope of which includes:
40
Exchanging information on gender (e.g.,

activities, best practices, current news, lessons
learned and pipelines);
Facilitating joint activity, project/programme
formulation, planning and implementation;

Promoting coordination among national

entities, the donor community and the
UN system;
Providing support to the UN system to
mobilize resources;
Promoting effective partnerships among
bilateral donors, the donor community,
multilateral organizations, NGOs, the
private sector and the UN system;
Advising and assisting the reinforcement of
the UN systems lead and catalyst role;
Networking and advocating UN issues
with academia, government, media and
NGOs; and
Advising and organizing outreach events and
activities to increase donor, government and
public awareness of UN system activities.
Gender-disaggregated data is mainly produced

by the Uzbekistan State Committee as part of
annual MDG reports and regular National
Human Development Reports. However, there is
little sharing of this gender data among UN
agencies, with the exception of the ADB gender
Box 5.2 Three levels of capacity development

1. The enabling environment is the term used to describe the broader system within which individuals and
organizations function and which either facilitates or hampers their existence and development. This level
of capacity is not easy to visualize, but it is extremely important to the understanding of capacity issues.
Capacities at the level of the enabling environment include policies, legislation, power relations and social
norms, all of which govern the mandates, priorities, modes of operation and civic engagement across
different parts of society. They determine the rules of the game for interaction between and among
organizations.
2. The organizational level of capacity comprises the internal policies, procedures and frameworks that
allow an organization to operate and deliver on its mandate, and that enable individual capacities to
work together and achieve goals. If these exist, are well-resourced and well-aligned, the capability of an
organization to perform will be greater than that of the sum of its parts.
3. The individual level of capacity refers to the skills, experience and knowledge that are vested in a person.
Each person is endowed with a mix of capacities that allows him or her to perform, whether at home, at
work or in society at large. Some of these are acquired through formal training and education, others
through learning by doing and experience.
assessment.66 Gender analysis is used only in specific

womens- and health-related projects, such as the
ADB and The World Bank small grants programme,
WHO projects and certain UN agency gender
projects, mainly those of UNICEF and UNFPA.
UNDP support to the implementation of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women provides a
concrete example of a UN system project that
includes a gender analysis of legislation. Beyond
a specific focus on MDG 3Promote gender
equality and empower womenUNDP has been
successful in encouraging the use of genderdisaggregated statistics in national reporting on
all MDGs. UNDP has also supported the
preparation of the 2005 Statistical Bulletin,
Gender Equality in Uzbekistan: Facts and
Figures 20002004.67
5.2 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

At the corporate level, UNDP promotes various
capacity development strategies, tools and
approaches, such as capacity assessments68

covering three levels of capacity development
(see Box 5.2). These are made available and
discussed through UNDP-supported capacity
development networks, professional programmes,
libraries, project databases and other relevant
tools. However, UNDP Uzbekistan project
documents seldom demonstrate how these
strategies and tools are applied to programmes or
project designs in practice.
Since 2000, there has not been a systematic
approach to needs assessment during the
planning phase of UNDP projects. The need for
training and learning was highlighted mainly by
professional workshops or participatory planning
processes, where governmental or local stakeholders
raised such needs. Systematic needs analysis
forms the basis for project design and, at the same
time, formalizes the objectives of educational and
training activities. While a less systematic
approach may lead to satisfactory immediate results
in human-resource development and learning, and
may even prove to be efficient and effective, such
66. ADB 2005.

67. Government of Uzbekistan/UzStat and UNDP, Gender Equality in Uzbekistan: Facts and Figures 20002004,
Statistical Bulletin, Tashkent, 2005.
68. See www.capacity.undp.org.
41
results are rarely sustainable if they do not also

strengthen local or regional structures.
The UNDP Practice Note for Capacities for
Integrated Local Development69 divides
approaches to local development into four
categories: direct community support, local
government support, area-based development
and decentralized sector approaches. The
common feature of the four is the objective
of strengthening local governments, planning
and decision-making mechanisms, and local
institutions during the decentralization process.
This can take place in different ways, but always
using needs assessments of institutional and
educational structures and human resources.
The ADR team did not find any documents
discussing the foundation for the selection of
area-based development as the main approach to
supporting the decentralization process in
Uzbekistan. This deficiency also influences
deeper comparative analysis of development
approaches and concepts, which would be
useful, for example, when further refining the
selected approach.
In addition, capacity development among regionally active institutions has been limited. ELS and
ABD projects, for instance, always included
institutional development aspects, but they
typically created their own institutional structures,
such as Information Resource Centres. It is not
clear whether these Centres will continue to exist
after the end of the project, even if those created
under the first ELS project continue to exist
three years after it closed. In contrast, there are
many active institutionsincluding educational
and those managed by the regional chamber of
commercethat could be developed further by
adding services to their ongoing activities.
Sectoral and line ministries are usually satisfied
with the quality of projects educational
components and training received from UNDP.
However, ministries training needs often
gravitate towards supplementary topics, and

officials typically request additional training and
learning support, often after the project cycle.
A more sustainable project concept is for UNDP
to use a training-system approach, where future
trainers, who will assist in the following phases of
the process, are identified and included among
the first group of trainees. Typically, the ideal
candidates for future trainers are either teachers
from line ministry institutions or ministry and
central administration civil servants that have
also received pedagogic training. In privatesector development projects, trainers can be
selected among participating professionals. This
training approach reduces the need for UNDP
involvement in training events and efficiently
and effectively strengthens local capacities.
However, this has not been the case for UNDP
projects in Uzbekistan. Thus, UNDP will have
to remain responsive to important and understandable requests for support from ministries
and the central administration after project cycles
end. This issue will become an increasing burden
for UNDP if the approach is not strategically
altered to selectively strengthen existing
institutional structures. This adjustment should
be based on a thorough assessment of existing
needs and resources. Discussions with the staff of
the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre revealed
that this problem has been very common
throughout the region.
5.3 PROGRAMME
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Representatives of some ministries, such as the
Ministry of Finance of Uzbekistan and the
Parliament, expressed the opinion that most
judicial, legislative and regulatory framework
development initiatives should be viewed as
processes rather than projects, and that UNDP
support should be provided during the entire
period of their development. For example, tax
69. UNDP, Practice Note for Capacities for Integrated Local Development, 2007.
42
reform took over two years longer than expected,

and the complex customs reform process is
currently facing the same setback. The follow-up
report to the National Waste Management
Strategy project70 noted that the delays in
adopting the main outputs of the project (a
national Strategy for Waste Management and a
5-year Plan of Action) were the result of due
process being applied and it would seem that the
time-frame allowed by the project for this activity
was too short and unrealistic.
Uzbekistan remains in the beginning stages of
many new processes (e.g., the countrys entry
into global markets and WTO). Many of
these processes are complex, and international
experience suggests that they will last much
longer than expected. As such, it would be
beneficial to take this orientation towards a
long-term process into account during project
planning. This would mean changes in the
project cycle, as well as in augmenting reserves to
facilitate and backstop the development processes.
Separately, personnel changes in UNDP
Uzbekistan have resulted in limited institutional
memory. Furthermore, there has been very little
internal transfer of project experiences from
senior to new staff members. Only one project
manager has worked with UNDP projects from
the beginning of 2000, and only three other staff
members have been engaged since the second
country programme (20002004). There is also a
clear need to deepen collaboration between
country office units.
In addition, no country programme evaluations
had been conducted between the last two
programming periods. Outcome evaluations had
also been omitted, although they had been part of
the country office evaluation plan. The number
of historic documents available to the ADR team
was very limited, and interviews revealed that
UNDP staff rarely utilized such documents.
5.4 UN SYSTEM AND DONOR

COORDINATION
The recent UNDAF mid-term evaluation
examined several issues related to UN system
coordination, primarily focusing on the constraints
related to the design and effectiveness of
UNDAF programmes. However, the key practical
limitations concerned the limited use of internal
agency programming and ensuring the sustainability of UN system programmes and projects.
The lack of capacity-building elements were
identified as the main bottlenecks. These issues
are similarly evident in UNDP-led activities, as
addressed in preceding sections.
The preparation phase is crucial to the practical
coordination of programmes and projects. This
issue was also raised by international financial
institutions that would like to increase cooperation with the UN system. While a system-wide
approach is occasionally recognized in codes of
conduct, theoretical papers and evaluations,
actual UN-system project documents seldom
contain such an approach. Typically, each
UN organization carries out programme and
project planning in isolation. Although project
documents are technically well prepared for
governmental clients, and UNDP receives very
satisfactory results and feedback, the inclusion of
various stakeholders into the planning process
appears surprisingly lacking. Discussions tend to
take place too late in the project cycle. While
such collaboration is informative, it rarely results
from or leads to concrete joint planning.
Coordination among UN system organizations is
most successful at the local level. For example, in
Karakalpakstan, assistance is being provided to
local authorities in donor coordination and in
preparing a regional tuberculosis project, which
has turned into the UN Joint Project between
UNDP and the United Nations Volunteers.
Technical advice is provided by WHO, and
potential partnerships are also planned with
UNICEF and UNFPA. In 2007, UNICEF and
70. Tortell, 2006. See http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/Evaluation-Policy.pdf.
43
UNDP merged efforts to support the empowerment of local communities participating in ELS
project activities. This allowed UNICEF to
expand its geographic coverage and the ELS
project to benefit from UNICEF expertise.
UNICEF and UNDP also coordinated in
integrating ICT into secondary schools. Another
example is The World Bank and ELS collaboration
in relation to supplying energy to rural health
clinics as described in section 4.3.3. Nevertheless,
improvements in donor coordination remain
needed, as highlighted in the case of HIV/AIDS
interventions. Coordination in this area received
the most criticism, though this criticism addressed
not only UN-system performance, but also that
of the entire international donor community.
As noted in Chapter 2, there are no formal
government aid coordination mechanisms in
place, even if some are envisaged within the WIS.
UNDP is in a good position to help the govern-
44
ment implement such mechanisms and to ensure

more effective use of external assistance. In
addition, local governments would benefit if
UNDP were to increase its coordinating role
with other donor agencies at local and regional
levels. This concerns not only project-level activities, but also the broader coordination of
different donor agencies and their roles,
activities, projects, instruments and available
information. The future role and position of
UNDP in Uzbekistan largely depends on how
well the agency can perform in a local and
regional coordination role, as donor agencies that
become active in Uzbekistan lack local
knowledge and experience. UNDP has a very
good reputation among stakeholders and donor
agencies: it is recognized for its transparency as
well as for its active and efficient dissemination of
information and results. In the future, this
approach should be increasingly utilized at the
local and regional levels.
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter uses the findings and assessments
discussed in the preceding sections to introduce
conclusions made by the ADR team, and closes
with a set of recommendations.
6.1 MAIN CONCLUSIONS

1. Overall, UNDP has made an important contribution to Uzbekistans development during the
period under review. This contribution took
place during a time of rapid change, including
the implementation of key reforms, fast
economic growth and a change in the countrys
relationship with the international community.
Though such circumstances have made the

engagement more complex, they have also
offered opportunities for UNDP. UNDP has
remained committed to supporting Uzbekistan
and has a sound programme, much appreciated
by the partner government. Measuring UNDP
contribution towards stated programme outcomes
is difficult in view of limited available data and
changes in the direction of the programme over
time. Although a comprehensive examination of
the total portfolio of projects was not conducted,
the effectiveness of achieving project results can
be assessed as satisfactory. UNDP interventions
to support achieving the MDGs and reducing
human poverty made important contributions to
the stated outcomes. In support to fostering
democratic governance, the contribution towards
the stated goals was more limited, partly due to a
change in the direction of this group of activities
during the ongoing programme; nonetheless,
important contributions to national results were
made. In the area of energy and environment
for sustainable development, UNDP efforts
went beyond its contribution to the relevant
outcome stated in the 20052009 country
programme document.
2. UNDP has been relevant to Uzbekistans

priority development needs, as these have been
defined by the President and the Government of
Uzbekistan, and to the needs articulated at local
and regional levels.
UNDP has been working with a partner government that has a strong willingness to take
national ownership of development processes.
Strong responsiveness to, and close cooperation
with, governmental authorities has proven to be
an efficient method of jointly developing
effective programmes and projects. This
approach has also guaranteed strong government
commitment. If commitment and sustainability
are to be achieved, it is crucial to undertake a
participatory approach from the very beginning
of the process. This is relevant at all activity
levels, from central government and the
Parliament to local projects and other activities.
Problems that are identified and prioritized by
local people and their groupsand solved based
on joint preparationshave led to sustainable
results. Social infrastructure projects in the
UNDP portfolio that address water, gas and
heating problems offer good examples of this
type of activity. Where UNDP interventions
support local-level private-sector development,
care needs to be taken in order to ensure that its
efforts support the market for credit, not distort
it through the provision of grants.
In some cases, UNDP may have missed opportunities for engagementfor example, in areas
where the comparative UNDP strength of
neutrality and long-term commitment to
Uzbekistans development could have played an
important role. In the case of Uzbekistans
Welfare Improvement Strategy, UNDP did not
capitalize on some of its expertise (e.g., environment and energy issues) and did not conduct an
adequate analysis of implementation risks, the
C H A P T E R 6 . C O N C LU S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
45
importance of which was underscored by recent

changes in the global financial climate.
3. UNDP responsiveness has led to a wideranging programme. In order to increase the
interventions, it is important for UNDP to focus
on fewer issues (and on those in which it has
comparative strengths) and to take a more
Although UNDP has been responsive to government needs as these emergedespecially in the
area of providing technical support to policy
formulationin some cases, UNDP has been so
responsive that it lost sight of the need to focus
on projects with long-term strategic linkages.
UNDP could have been more critical in selecting
proposals with strategic development importance
and prioritizing them using development strategies.
In UNDP support for democratic governance,
important and high-priority projects have been
implemented in two country programme cycles,
but proposals were not conducted strategically. In
other areas, including energy, national priorities
were unclear and projects were typically scattered,
offering limited strategic or policy-level linkages.
At the same time, the approaches, scope and
selection of proposals were occasionally heavily
influenced by available funding mechanisms and
instruments, and driven by resource mobilization
concerns. A more strategic response, where
interventions are anchored to clear national
priorities, could be facilitated through better use of
annual Country Programme Action Plan reviews.
Follow-up to development projects is increasingly needed in order to ensure effectiveness and
maximize UNDP contributions. Considering
development activities as longer-term processes
instead of projects with strict cycles would be
useful in some cases, particularly in complex
processes such as legislative development.
The overall UNDP approach of combining
policy support in the capital with direct interventions at the local level has been balanced,
especially in the context of the declining engagement of international development partners since
2004. The comparative strengths of UNDP lie in
46
its work in rural areas and in its access to central

government. Maintaining the appropriate
balance between the two, and ensuring strong
linkages between lessons learned at the local level
and central policy making, will remain a major
challenge in the next programme. The change in
the aid environmentfollowing re-engagement
of many international organizations and growing
interest in addressing rural issuesmay mean
that UNDP will need to play a more focused and
strategic role at the local level, such as by facilitating local government aid coordination to
complement its support to aid coordination at
the central level.
4. UNDP has engaged in some good development
partnerships, and now needs to build on them,
ensuring that it adds value to relationships (e.g.,
though the promotion of human development
and/or ensuring the involvement of the most
vulnerable and marginalized portions of society).
UNDP strategic partnerships vary between

sectors, projects and government levels. The
strongest partnerships are with governmental
authorities that jointly prepare and implement all
relevant projects and activities. These partnerships are based on mutual respect, but require a
higher degree of UNDP accountability and
greater transparency of intervention selection and
UNDP has also established a variety of quality
partnerships with international development
partners. For example, UNDP has managed
projects for The World Bank, such as the Water
and Sanitation project funded by an IBRD loan.
UNDP has also worked in partnerships where its
added value went beyond management: in
working with the European Commission,
primarily on ELS projects and the regional
BOMCA/CADAP initiatives, UNDP added
value through its expertise in working with local
communities and drawing on global best
practices. These experiences have satisfied the
partners, and while cooperation is likely to
continue, it will be within a very different
environment as re-engagement of many such
partners intensifies.
The UNDP role in such partnerships is likely to

change from overall programme management to
implementation of either select programme
elements or areas where UNDP has a strong
presence. Closer collaboration with donors and
international financial institutions should focus
on incorporating human development approaches
and priorities within investment programmes.
Such linkages are required, particularly in the
fields of environment, energy, water resources
and agricultural sector development. In such
partnerships, the role of UNDP would increasingly tend towards the inclusion of the most
vulnerable and marginalized stakeholders. At the
same time, the increased involvement of the
European Union, its member countries and other
bilateral agencies will mean that they may also
need to utilize UNDP experience in their future
interventions, especially at the local level.
5. While capacity development has been at the
centre of many UNDP interventions, limited use
has been made of the tools and approaches that
UNDP has developed at the corporate level.
Inadequate use of capacity assessments has led to

reduced effectiveness and efficiency of interventions, and limited sustainability of results. At the
same time, project design has sometimes led to
inefficient approaches to capacity development.
For example, instead of UNDP and its partners
training all participants, appropriate institutes
at local, regional and national levels could
have been strengthened in order to initially focus
on producing local specialists to take over
subsequent capacity development activities.
Where UNDP has used this approach in
Uzbekistan, it has been successfulthe approach
needs to be replicated across all activities.
6. There is a need for UNDP to increase its
learning from experience and to facilitate
greater opportunities for national learning
from its interventions.
All UNDP interventions should provide lessons

that can support not only its own activities, but
also those of its partners. Specifically, greater
effort needs to be made to link lessons learned to

national policy development. Likewise, UNDP
needs to build on its successes in scaling-up, as in
the ELS/ABD interventions, and to ensure an even
greater scope of regional and national replication.
Evaluation and monitoring practices should also
be strengthened, and a culture of focusing on
results should be established. Learning from
previous experience will not only improve
intervention efficiency, but also improve
effectiveness. In this respect, the international
dissemination of experiences, lessons learned and
best practices should be strengthened. There are
Central Asian countries that could benefit from
Uzbekistans experience, while those of others in
the broader region could offer Uzbekistan lessons
in return. With its global network, UNDP is in a
position to facilitate this information exchange.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In agreement with government, focus the
programme on a smaller number of strategic
interventions where UNDP has clear comparative
strengths, is able to offer a long-term commitment and, through relevant partnerships, is
able to address the underlying issue in a
comprehensive manner.
Make efforts to ensure UNDP activities are in

line with those set out in its strategic plan and are
in areas where it has comparative strengths in
Uzbekistan, while remaining responsive to
national priorities. Where there is national
demand for inter-ventions outside these areas,
UNDP should facilitate the development of
partnerships between national and appropriate
international organizations with relevant
expertisefor example, through joint programming. Interventions should continue to build on
the UNDP comparative strength of neutrality
and long-term commitment to Uzbekistans
development. As an initial step, UNDP should
work closely with the government to ensure that
both comprehensive environmental concerns and
risk analysis are adequately integrated into
national development planning instruments.
47
2. Build on existing partnerships with

international development partners, but
ensure that UNDP adds value beyond purely
management arrangements.
This includes donor coordination, facilitating

partnerships and disseminating information about
donor agencies and funding opportunities.
Incorporate human development approaches in

the interventions of international partners,
building on the UNDP focus and comparative
strengths in promoting human development
in Uzbekistan, especially at the local level.
Implement joint programmes and other forms of
collaboration with international partners
particularly with international financial institutionswhere UNDP can play a role in ensuring
that the most vulnerable and marginalized
groups benefit from interventions.
5. Strengthen UNDP support to capacity

development in Uzbekistan through a more
rigorous and systematic application of corporate
capacity development tools and approaches.
3. Build on existing experience and relationships

with local government and communities.
Use existing UNDP experience, strengths and

proximity to local government (in the areas where
UNDP works) as a base to comprehensively
strengthen and expand the existing frameworks
used to address rural issues. However, in the
context of a changing aid environment and the
re-engagement of many donors, UNDP should
be more strategic in local interventions and in
support of local government.
4. Expand the UNDP role in supporting
government efforts at aid coordination.
As a committed and neutral partner, UNDP is in

a good position to support government aid
coordination activities and to ensure more
effective use of external assistance. UNDP should
play the leading role in supporting government
coordination of aid at the local level, linking its
support to better aid coordination in the centre.
48
Use needs and institutional assessments in all

project preparations while ensuring that
corporate tools are adapted to the specific context
of Uzbekistan. In order to facilitate greater
sustainability of results, anchor UNDP capacity
development interventions in existing institutions.
6. Ensure that mechanisms are in place to
facilitate linkages between all direct interventions and decision makers.
Ensure direct and explicit linkages with decision

makers in all UNDP interventions. Lessons
learned should feed into policymaking, and,
where necessary, mechanisms should be put in
place to facilitate such linkages. Moreover, such
linkages will facilitate replication of successful
interventions and scaling up across regions. At
the same time, it is necessary to strengthen
evaluation mechanisms in the country office in
order to facilitate the learning process.
7. Undertake annual Country Programme Action
Plan reviews to increase transparency and to
facilitate greater stakeholder accountability of
UNDP activities in Uzbekistan.
Ensure wider participation in annual reviews and

greater participation of relevant government
bodies in programming processes in order to
ensure the transparency of decision-making and
Annex I
TERMS OF REFERENCE
INTRODUCTION
The Evaluation Office (EO) of the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP)
conducts country evaluations, referred to as
Assessments of Development Results (ADRs), to
capture and demonstrate evaluative evidence of
UNDP contributions to development results at
the country level. ADRs are carried out within
the provisions of the UNDP Evaluation Policy.1
The overall goals of an ADR are to:
Provide substantive support to the

Administrators accountability function in
reporting to the Executive Board;
Support greater UNDP accountability to
national stakeholders and partners in the
programme country;
Serve as a means of quality assurance for
UNDP interventions at the country level;
and
Contribute to learning at corporate, regional
and country levels.
In particular, the EO plans to conduct an ADR

in Uzbekistan during 2008. The ADR will
contribute to a new country programme, which
will be prepared by the concerned Country
Office and national stakeholders.
dominant sector of the economy: in 2005, the

sector accounted for 30 percent of employment.
The country has a young and rapidly growing
population, and thus faces the challenge to create
jobsespecially in rural areas, where two thirds
of Uzbekistans population live.
Since becoming independent in 1991,
Uzbekistan has been implementing reform
policies to move away from the inherited
structures of the former Soviet Union.
Dismantling the systems, structures and
mentality accumulated during 70 years has been
an enormous challenge.
UNDP has had a representative office in
Uzbekistan in its efforts to develop a strong
democracy. The primary reason for selecting
Uzbekistan for an ADR was the forthcoming
completion of the 20052009 Country
Programme, which presents an opportunity to
evaluate the achievements and results of the past
programme cycle, and to feed findings and
conclusions into the process of developing and
implementing the new programme.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE
AND METHODOLOGY
The objectives of the Uzbekistan ADR include:
BACKGROUND
Uzbekistan is a double-landlocked, low-income

country in Central Asia, rich in gold, copper,
natural gas, oil and uranium. During the Soviet
period, Uzbekistan was developed as a centre for
cotton production, and agriculture is still the

progress (or lack thereof ) towards the
expected outcomes envisaged in UNDP
programming documents, and where
appropriate, highlight unexpected positive or
negative outcomes and missed opportunities;
1. See http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/Evaluation-Policy.pdf.
ANNEX I. TERMS OF REFERENCE
49
Second Country Cooperation Framework 20002004
UNDP Country Programme 20052009
Support to civil society and private sector development
Democratic governance
Support to the reform process

Present key findings, draw key lessons, and
next Country Programme.
The ADR will review UNDP experience in

Uzbekistan and its contribution to addressing
social, economic and political challenges. The
evaluation will cover the 20002004 and
20052009 country programmes. Although it is
likely that greater emphasis will be placed on
more recent interventions (due to better
availability of data), efforts should be made to
examine the development and implementation of
UNDP programmes since the start of the period.
The identification of existing evaluative evidence
and potential constraints (e.g., lack of records or
institutional memory) will occur during the
initial Scoping Mission (see Section 4 for more
details on the process).
The overall methodology will be consistent with
the EO ADR Guidelines of January 2007. The
evaluation will undertake a comprehensive review
of the UNDP programme portfolio and activities, specifically examining the UNDP contribution to national development results across the
country. Factors assessed will include key results,
specifically outcomes (anticipated and unanticipated, positive and negative, intentional and
unintentional), and UNDP assistance funded by
both core and non-core resources.
The evaluation has two main components: the
analysis of development outcomes and a review
of UNDP strategic positioning.
50
Economic governance and poverty reduction

Environmental governance
DEVELOPMENT RESULTS
The assessment of development outcomes will
entail a comprehensive review of the UNDP
portfolios of the previous and ongoing
programme cycles. This includes an assessment
of development results achieved and UNDP
contribution in terms of key interventions;
progress in achieving outcomes for the ongoing
country programme; factors influencing results
(e.g., UNDP positioning and capacity, partnerships, and policy support); UNDP achievements,
progress and contribution in practice areas (both
in policy and advocacy); and analysing the crosscutting linkages and their relationship to the
Millennium Development Goals and the United
Nations Development Assistance Framework.
The analysis of development results will identify
challenges and strategies for future interventions.
In addition to using available information, the
evaluation will document and analyse achievements in view of intended outcomes, as well as
the linkages between activities, outputs and
outcomes. The evaluation will qualify the UNDP
contribution to outcomes with a reasonable
degree of plausibility.
There is a core set of evaluative criteria related to
the design, management and implementation of
UNDP interventions in the country. Core
criteria include:
Effectiveness: Did the UNDP programme

accomplish its intended objectives and
planned results? What are the strengths and
weaknesses of the programme? What are the
unexpected results it yielded? Should the
programme continue in the same direction,
or should its main tenets be reviewed for the
new cycle?
Efficiency: How well did UNDP use its

human and financial resources in achieving
its contribution? What could be done to
ensure a more efficient use of resources in the
specific country and subregional context?
Sustainability: Is the UNDP contribution
sustainable? Are the development results
achieved through such contribution sustainable? Are the benefits of UNDP interventions
sustained and owned by national stakeholders
after the intervention is completed?
Special efforts will be made to examine the

UNDP contribution to capacity development,
knowledge management and gender equality.
STRATEGIC POSITIONING
The evaluation will assess the strategic positioning of UNDP from both its own perspective and
the development priorities in the country. This
will entail: i) a systematic analysis of the UNDP
place and niche within the development and
policy space in Uzbekistan; ii) the strategies used
by UNDP Uzbekistan to strengthen the UNDP
position in the development space and create a
position for the organization in its core practice
areas; iii) an assessment, from the perspective of
the development results for the country, of the
policy support and advocacy initiatives of the
UNDP programme vis--vis other stakeholders.
In addition, the evaluation will analyse a core set of
criteria related to the strategic positioning of UNDP:
2.
Relevance of UNDP programmes: How

relevant are UNDP programmes to the
priority needs of the country? Did UNDP
apply the right strategy within the specific
political, economic and social context of the
region? To what extent are long-term
development needs likely to be met across
the practice areas? What are the critical gaps
in UNDP programming?
Responsiveness: How did UNDP anticipate

and respond to significant changes in the
national development context? How did
UNDP respond to long-term national
development needs? What were the missed
opportunities in UNDP programming?
Equity: Did UNDP programmes and
interventions lead to reduced vulnerabilities
in the country? Did UNDP interventions in
any way influence existing inequities (e.g.,
exclusion) in the society? Was selection of
geographical areas of intervention guided by
need?
Partnerships: How has UNDP leveraged
partnerships within the UN system and
national civil society and the private sector?
The evaluation will also consider the influence of

administrative constraints affecting the
programme, and specifically the UNDP contribution, including issues related to the relevance
and effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation system. If such considerations emerge as
important during the initial analysis, they will be
included in the scope of the evaluation. Within
the context of partnerships with the UN system
and overall UN coordination, the evaluation will
also highlight the issue of joint programming.
EVALUATION METHODS
AND APPROACHES
DATA COLLECTION
The evaluation will use a multiple method
approach that could include desk reviews,
workshops, group and individual interviews (at
both headquarter and the Country Office),
project and field visits, and surveys. The
appropriate set of methods will depend on local
context: the precise mix will be determined
during the Scoping Mission and detailed in an
Inception Report.2
The Scoping Mission and Inception Report are described in Section 5 on the evaluation process.
51
VALIDATION
Commonwealth of Independent States

(context and county programme) and other
relevant bureaux including Bureau for
Development Policy and the United Nations
Development Group Office.
The Evaluation Team will use a variety of

methods, including triangulation, to ensure that
the data is valid. Specific validation methods will
be detailed in the Inception Report.
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
The evaluation will use a strong participatory

approach that involves a broad range of
stakeholders. Stakeholders will be identified
among government ministries and agencies, civil
society organizations, private sector representatives, UN agencies, multilateral organizations,
bilateral donors, and beneficiaries. To facilitate
this approach, all ADRs include a process of
stakeholder mapping that includes both direct
UNDP partners and the stakeholders who do not
have direct involvement with with UNDP.

EVALUATION PROCESS
The process will also follow the ADR Guidelines,
according to which the process can be divided in
three phases, each including several steps.
PHASE 1: PREPARATION
52
Desk review is initially carried out by the

EO (identification, collection and mapping
of relevant documentation and other data)
and continued by the Evaluation Team. This
process will include review of general
development-related documentation specific
to country and a comprehensive overview of
the UNDP programme over the period
under evaluation.
Stakeholder mapping identifies stakeholders
relevant to an evaluation. Identified
stakeholders will include state and civil
society actors that go beyond direct UNDP
partners. The mapping exercise will also
indicate the relationships among different
sets of stakeholders.
Inception meetings will include headquartersbased interviews and discussions in with the
EO (regarding process and methodology),
the Regional Bureau for Europe and the
Scoping mission A mission to Uzbekistan

in order to:
Identify and collect further documentation;
Validate the mapping of the country
programmes;
Get key stakeholder perspectives on key
issues that should be examined;
Address logistical issues related to the
main mission, including timing;
Identify the appropriate set of data collection and analysis methods;
Address management issues related to the
rest of the evaluation process, including
division of labour among the team
members; and
Ensure the country office staff and
key stakeholders understand the ADR
objectives, methodology and process.
The Task Manager will accompany the Team

Leader on the mission.
Inception Report: The development of a

short Inception Report, including: the final
evaluation design and plan; background to the
evaluation; key evaluation questions; detailed
methodology; information sources and instruments and plan for data collection; design for
data analysis; and format for reporting.
PHASE 2: CONDUCTING ADR AND

DRAFTING EVALUATION REPORT
Main ADR mission: A mission of two

(possibly three) weeks will be conducted by
the independent Evaluation Team and
will focus on data collection and validation.
An important part of this process will be
an Entry Workshop where the ADR
objectives, methods and process will be
explained to stakeholders. The team will visit

significant project/field sites as identified in
the scoping mission.
Analysis and reporting: the information

collected will be analysed in the draft ADR
report by the Evaluation Team within three
weeks after the departure of the team from
the country.
Review: The draft will be subject to
(a) factual corrections and views on interpretation by key clients (including the UNDP
country office, the Regional Bureau for
Europe and the Commonwealth of
Independent States, and government),
(b) a technical review by the EO, and
(c) a review by external experts. The EO will
prepare an audit trail to show how these
comments were taken in to account. The
Team Leader, in close cooperation with
the EO Task Manager, shall finalize the
ADR report based on these final reviews.
Stakeholder meeting: A meeting with the

key national stakeholders will be organized
to present the results of the evaluation and
examine ways forward in Uzbekistan. The
main purposes of the meeting will be to
facilitate greater buy-in by national
stakeholders in taking the lessons and
recommendations from the report forward
and to strengthen the national ownership of
development process and the necessary
accountability of UNDP interventions at the
country level. It may be necessary for the
Evaluation Team to incorporate significant
comments into the final Evaluation Report.
PHASE 3: FOLLOW-UP
Management response: The UNDP Associate
Administrator will request relevant units (in
the case of an ADR, usually the relevant
country office and Regional Bureau) to
jointly prepare a management response to the
ADR. As a unit exercising oversight, the

Regional Bureau will be responsible for
monitoring and overseeing the implementation of follow-up actions in the Evaluation
Resource Centre.
Communication: the ADR report and brief

will be widely distributed in both hard and
electronic versions. The Evaluation Report will
be made available to the UNDP Executive
Board by the time of approving a new Country
Programme Document. It will be widely
distributed in Uzbekistan and at UNDP
headquarters. Copies will be sent to evaluation
outfits of other international organizations, as
well as to evaluation societies and research
institutions in the region. Furthermore, the
evaluation report and the management
response will be published on the UNDP
Web site3 and made available to the public.
Its availability will be announced on UNDP
and external networks.
The tentative time-frame and responsibilities for

the evaluation process are detailed in the table on
the following page.
MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
UNDP EO
The UNDP EO Task Manager will manage the
evaluation and ensure coordination and liaison
with the Regional Bureau for Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States, other
concerned units at headquarters level, and the
Uzbekistan country office management. The EO
will also contract a Research Assistant to facilitate the initial desk review and a Programme
Assistant to support logistical and administrative
matters. The EO will meet all costs directly
related to the conduct of the ADR. These will
include costs related to participation of the Team
Leader, international and national consultants, as
well as the preliminary research and the issuance
of the final ADR report. EO will also cover the
costs of any stakeholder workshops conducted as
part of the evaluation.
3. www.undp.org/eo/
53
Activity
Estimated date
Collection and mapping of documentation by the Research Assistant
May-June
Desk Review by the Evaluation Team
June
Evaluation Team meeting at UNDP New York
June 1113
Scoping Mission to Barbados and OECS
June 1620
Inception Report and Full ADR Terms of Reference
July 4
The following are tentative and will be firmed during the scoping mission in consultation with the country
office and government:
Main ADR mission to Uzbekistan
July 1425
Submission of First Draft Report
August 15
Comments from EO and Advisory Panel
August 22
Submission of Second Draft Report
August 29
Factual corrections from country office, regional bureau and government
September 12
Issuance of Final Report
September 19
Stakeholder workshop
November
THE EVALUATION TEAM

The team will be constituted of three members:
Consultant Team Leader: with overall

responsibility for providing guidance and
leadership, and in coordinating the draft and
Final Report;
Consultant Team Specialist: who will
provide the expertise in the core subject areas
of the evaluation and be responsible for
drafting key parts of the report; and
National Consultant: who will undertake data
collection and analyses at the country-level, as
well as support the work of the missions.
The Team Leader must have a demonstrated

capacity in the evaluation of complex programmes
in the field, strategic thinking and policy advice.
All team members should have in-depth
knowledge of development issues in Uzbekistan
and/or Central Asia.
The Evaluation Team will be supported by a

Research Assistant based in the Evaluation
Office in New York. The Task Manager of the
Evaluation Office will support the team in
designing the evaluation, will participate in
the scoping mission and will provide ongoing
feedback for quality assurance during the
preparation of the Inception and Final Report.
Depending on the need, the EO Task Manager
may participate to the main mission too.
The evaluation team will orient its work by
United Nations Evaluation Group norms and
standards for evaluation, and will adhere to the
ethical Code of Conduct.4
THE UZBEKISTAN COUNTRY OFFICE
The country office will take a lead role in
organizing dialogue and stakeholder meetings on
the findings and recommendations, support the
evaluation team in liaison with the key partners,
and make available to the team all necessary
4. The UN Evaluation Group Guidelines (UNEG) Norms for Evaluation in the UN System and Standards for
Evaluation in the UN System (April 2005).
54
information regarding UNDP activities in the

country. The office will also be requested to
provide additional logistical support to the
Evaluation Team as required. The country office
will contribute support in kind (e.g., office
space), while the EO will cover local transportation costs.
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
The expected outputs from the Evaluation Team are:

The final report of the ADR to be produced by the

Evaluation Team will follow the following format:
Chapter 1: Introduction;
Chapter 2: Country Context;
Chapter 3:The UN and UNDP in the Country;

An Inception Report (maximum 20 pages);

A comprehensive final report on the
Uzbekistan Assessment of Development
Results (maximum 50 pages plus annexes);
A two-page evaluation brief; and
A presentation for the Stakeholder Workshop.
Chapter 4: UNDP Contribution to National

Development Results;
Chapter 5: Strategic Positioning of the
UNDP Country Programme; and
Chapter 6: Conclusions, Lessons and
Recommendations.
Detailed outlines for the Inception Report, main

ADR report and evaluation brief will be provided
to the evaluation team by the Task Manager.
55
Annex II
LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED

GOVERNMENT OF UZBEKISTAN
Mr. Karamadin Abdijaliev, Deputy Chairman,
Council of Ministers of Republic of
Karakalpakstan
Ms. Farida Akbarova, Deputy Prime Minister,
Chair of Central Committee, Womens
Committee of Uzbekistan
Mr. Boriy Alikhanov, Head, State Committee
for Nature Protection
Ms. R Alishaeva, Specialist, State Tax Committee
Mr. Victor Chub, Minister, General Director,
Center of Hydrometeorological Service of
Uzbekistan (UZHYDROMET)
Mr. Bakhrom Ergashev, Deputy Mayor,
Nishan District
Mr. Karomiddin Gadoev, Head of Division,
Department for United Nations and
International Organizations, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Inobat Karimova, Deputy Mayor on

Womens issues, Womens Committee
of Kashkadarya
Mr. Mukhtor Khaitmurodov, Deputy Mayor,
Kashkadarya Region
Mr. Asadjon Khodjaev, Deputy of General
Director, Communication and Information
Agency of Uzbekistan
Mr. R. Koraboev, Chairman, Farmers
Association of Namangan District
Mr. Melis Kosnazarov, Deputy Head, Chamber
of Commerce and Industry Department in
Karakalpakstan
Ms. Mubarek Matniyazova, Head, Information
and Analytical Department, Council of
Ministers of Karakalpakstan
Mr. Mukhammad Mondjazib, Department of
Cooperation with Eurasian Economic
Community and International Financial
Institutes, Ministry of Economy
Mr. Luqmon Gaffarov, Mayor, Kitab District
Mr. Gaibulla Murzambetov, Deputy Mayor,

Kegeily District of Karakalpakstan
Mr. Muratbay Ganiev, First Deputy Head,

Main Forestry Department, Ministry of
Agriculture and Water Resources
Mr. R. Mustofoqulov, Specialist, State

Tax Committee
Mr. Adhamjon Hankeldiev, Mayor, Bagdad

District
Mr. Sobir Jabborov, Deputy of Legal-Court
committee, Parliament of Uzbekistan
Mr. Bakhtiyor Kadyrov, First Deputy of General
Director, Center of Hydrometeorological
Service of Uzbekistan (UZHYDROMET)
Mr. Hojamurat Kaipnazarov, Head, Chamber of
Commerce and Industry Department in
Karakalpakstan
Mr. Sergey Myagkov, Deputy Director,

Center of Hydrometeorological Service
of Uzbekistan (UZHYDROMET)
Ms. Malika Nazarova, Chief, International
Department, Center of
Hydrometeorological Service of Uzbekistan
(UZHYDROMET)
Ms. Tatyana Ososkova, Chief, Environmental
Pollution Monitoring Service, Center of
Hydrometeorological Service of Uzbekistan
(UZHYDROMET)
Mr. A. Otahudjaev, Head, Namangan District
Branch, Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Ms. Rano Kalandarova, Deputy Chairperson,

Womens Committee Branch in
Karakalpakstan
Ms. Galina Saidova, Deputy Minster,

Ministry of Economy
Mr. Aripbai Karataev, Deputy Chairman of

the Nature Protection Committee,
Karakalpakstan
Mr. Sharapat Shamanbetov, Jurist of the

Mayors Office, Kegeily District
of Karakalpakstan
A N N E X I I . L I S T O F I N D I V I D U A L S C O N S U LT E D
57
Dr. Alisher Shaykhov, Chairman, Ambassador,

Chamber of Commerce and Trade
Mr. Shukrat Shukurov, Deputy Mayor,
Namangan District, and Regional ELS
Project Coordinator
Mr. Ziyadulla Khudoyqulov, Guard,

Navbahor Community
Mr. Toshhon Khurramov, Imam of
Khujailmkoni Village, Community
Heads of Kitab District
UZBEKISTAN CIVIL SOCIETY

Ms. Natalya Abdullaeva, Director, Istikhfoli
Avlod (NGO)
Ms. Malika Abdullakhodjaeva, MD,
Chairperson, Institute of Pathology Institute
Mr. Adil Koilibaev, Director, and staff,

Darwazakum Biological Pest Control
Laboratory
Ms. Gulzor Ablamova, Consultant on Womens

issues, Navbahor Community
Mr. Sagdulla Lutpullaev, Vice President,

Director General, PHYSICS-SUN
Academy of Science
Mr. Nuridin Aiytov, Chairperson, Karakalpak

Branch, Makhalla Fund
Mr. Mansor Maksudov, Head, Information

Resource Centre of Bagdad District
Mr. Azat Allayarov, Executive Director,

Tadbirkor Invest (microcredit organization),
Karakalpakstan
Ms. Altin Mukhanbetova, Client, Microfinance

Organization of Business Women
Association in Kegeily District
Mr. Ruslan Dauletnazarov, Leading Specialist,

Karakalpak Branch, Makhalla Fund
Ms. Karimova Nadira, Director, International

Organization for Migration
Ms. Nazira Elibaeva, Executive Director,

Karakalpakstan Branch, Business
Women Association
Mr. Nasriddin Qalandarov, Head, Sevaz

Village Community, Community Heads
of Kitab District
Ms. Halima, Head, Rural Medical Center,

Fergana District
Mr. Nurilla Qosimov, Head, Sharq Uzumzorlari

(agricultural cooperative)
Mr. Fulle Hans-Jurgen, International

Consultant, Karakalpakstan Branch,
Farmers Association
Mr. Khamroqul Rakhimov, Consultant,

Navbahor Community
Mr. Kobiljon Hasanov, Chairman, Makhalla

Fund of Fergana District
Mr. Fatkhulla Irgashev, Deputy Rector,
Academy of Social Construction under the
President of Uzbekistan
Mr. Ismoil Isatullaev, Head, Navbahor Community
Mr. Murod Ismailov, Head, International
Relations Office, University of World
Economy and Diplomacy
Ms. Gulnara Japakova, Director,
Karakalpakstan Branch, Uzbek
Association of Reproductive Health
Mr. Akmal Kh. Saidov, Director, National

Human Rights Centre
Ms. Sapargul Seilkhanova, Client, Microfinance
Organization of Business Women
Association in Kegeily District
UNDP UZBEKISTAN
Mr. Evgeniy Abdullaev, Program Legal Specialist
Ms. Rano Baykhanova, Renewable
Energy Specialist
Ms. Shirin Dosumova, Programme Officer,
Economic Governance Unit
Mr. Khamidulla Karamatov, Rector, University

of World Economy and Diplomacy
Mr. Ulugbek Islamov, Irrigation and Land

degradation specialist
Ms. Maksuda Karimova and other members,

Tinchlik Community
Mr. Farkhod Maksudov, Environment Specialist
Ms. Arukhan Kelimbetova, Deputy

Chairperson, Makhalla Fund, Republic
of Karakalpakstan
58
Mr. Sobir Khamroev, Representative of

Khujailmkoni Village, Community Heads
of Kitab District
Mr. Ercan Murat, Resident Representative a.i.

Ms. Kyoko Postill, Deputy Resident
Representative
Ms. Komila Rakhimova, Gender Specialist

Ms. Antonina Sevastyanova, Programme
Coordination Specialist
Ms. Aziza Umarova, Programme Officer,
Good Governance Unit
Ms. Saida Yusupova, Temporary Programme
Assistant
UNDP PROJECT STAFF

Ms. Malika Abdulkhodjaeva, Project Specialist,
Telemedicine
Mr. Zohid Asrarov, Project Specialist,
Improving Public Sector Management
Skills Through Building Training and
Research Capacity of the Higher School
of Business
Ms. Irina Bekmiorzaeva, Project Specialist,
Ecosystem Stability
Mr. Dosbergen Musaev, Project Manager,

Improving Public Sector Management
Skills Through Building Training and
Research Capacity of the Higher School
of Business
Mr. Vadim Navodni, Project Manager,
Development of Internet Technology Potential
Mr. Ravshan Nazarkulov, Project Manager,
Parliament Project
Mr. Latif Norov, Project Manager, Improving
the Systems of Customs Administration in
the Republic of Uzbekistan
Mr. Jakhongir Norqobilov, Project Coordinator,
ABD Kashkadarya
Mr. Narzullo Oblamurodov, Project Manager,
Business Forum of Uzbekistan
Mr. Bakhadur Poluaniyazov, Project Manager,
Karakalpakistan
Ms. Muattara Rakhimova, Project Manager,
Academy of State and Social Construction
of the President
Mr. Izatulla Boltaev, Project Manager,

Promotion of the Rights of Women
Migrant Workers
Mr. Aziz Rassulov, Project Manager,

Livestock Development
Ms. Elena Danilova, Human Development

Coordinator
Ms. Laura Rio, Programme Coordinator,

Enhanced Living Standards
Mr. Ravshan Dostkoraev, Task Manager

Mr. Bakhodir Ganiev, Project Manager,
Support to Investment Process for N
ational Development
Mr. Kamal Hamidov, Local Specialist on Aid,
Karakalpakistan
Ms. Shakhnoza Ikramova, Project Manager,
Telemedicine
Mr. Ulugebek Ishankhodjaev, Project Manager,
University of World Economy
and Diplomacy
Ms. Liliya Javyalova, Project Specialist,
Capacity-Building for CDM in Uzbekistan
Mr. Sanat Juraev, Facilitator, Microfinance
Component, Kashkadarya
Mr. Sandjar Saidkhodjaev, Project

Manager, Information Communication
Technology Policy
Mr. Sakhib Saifnazarov, Project Manager,
Ministry of Economy Project
Mr. Fayzulla Salokhidinov, National Consultant,
Enhancing the Capacity of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs to Better Respond to the
Emerging Issues of the New Millennium
Mr. Bakhodir Sharipov, Project Specialist,
Support to External Economic Policy
Mr. Yaminov Shukhrat, Project Specialist,
Enhancement of National Legal Database
for Reform Process of Uzbekistan
Ms. Dildora Tadjibaeva, Project Manager,
Public Finance Reform
Ms. Shakhnoza Ubaydullaeva, Training
Specialist, Legal Aid and Legal Literacy
for Better Access to Justice
Ms. Barchinoy Khalbekova, Project

Coordinator, Capacity-Building of
Business Education in Access to Justice
Mr. Kahramon Usmanov, Project Specialist,
Mr. Abdurazak Khujabekov, Project

Coordinator, Livestock Development
Mr. Oybek Yahshiev, Admin/Finance Assistant,

ABD Kashkadarya
59
UNDP BRATISLAVA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Hachemi Bahloul, Local Development
Specialist, Democratic Governance
Mr. Jacek Cukrowski, MDG Advisor, Poverty
Reduction Practice
Ms. Adriana Dinu, Regional Team Leader,
Environment and Regional Technical
Advisor for Biodiversity
Ms. Dafina Gercheva, Capacity
Development Advisor
Mr. Andrey Ivanov, Human Development
Advisor, Economic Governance
Ms. Anna Kaplina, Programme Associate,
Energy and Environment
Mr. Vladimir Mikhalev, Policy Advisor,
Poverty Reduction
Ms. Marina Olshanskaya, Regional Technical
Specialist for Climate Change
Mr. Rustam Pulatov, Policy Analyst, Human
Rights and Justice Policy Support and
Programme Development
Ms. Agi Veres, Deputy Chief, Policy Support
and Programme Development Unit
Mr. Rastislav Vrbensky, Senior Programme
and Policy Advisor
INTERNATIONAL DONOR
ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Pierre-Paul Antheunissens, Coordinator,
Europa House
Mr. James Bonner, Country Representative,
United States Agency for International
Development
Mr. Ildar Fayzullin, Project Officer,
Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe
Ms. Lola Maksudova, Project Officer,
in Europe
Ms. Caroline Milow, Senior Project Officer,
in Europe
Mr. Takasaka Muneo, Deputy Head, Japan
International Cooperation Agency
Mr. Nodir Narkabulov, Program officer, Japan
International Cooperation Agency
UN AGENCIES IN UZBEKISTAN
Mr. Fuad Aliev, Assistant Representative, UNFPA
UNDP HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Sanjar Tursaliev, Programme Specialist,
Central Asia Cluster, Regional Bureau for
Europe and the CIS
Ms. Yulia Oleinik, Programme Associate,
Central Asia Cluster, Regional Bureau for
Europe and the CIS
Mr. James Callahan, Regional Representative

for Central Asia, UNODC
Mr. Said Inogomov, Project Specialist, FAO
Mr. Aziz Khudoberdiev, Programme Officer,
UNAIDS
Mr. Khaled Philby, Representative, UNFPA
Mr. Mahbood Shareef, Representative, UNICEF
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Andro Shilakadze, Deputy Representative,

UNICEF
Mr. Loup Brefort, Country Manager,

The World Bank
Ms. Galina Kostina, Economist, International
Monetary Fund Office, Tashkent
Mr. Fernand Pillonel, Head of Resident Office,
European Bank of Reconstruction and
Development
Mr. Hong Wei, Country Director,
Asian Development Bank
60
Mr. Michel Tailhades, Representative, WHO
OTHER
Dr. Philip Tortell, Consultant, Environmental
Management Limited, Wellington,
New Zealand
Annex III
LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

Asian Development Bank, ADB Country
Strategy and Program. Uzbekistan 20062010.
Asian Development Bank, ADB Country
Gender Assessment: Uzbekistan, 2005.
Ballard-Tremeer, G., Opportunities for Biomass
Energy Programmes Experiences &
Lessons Learned by UNDP in Europe
& the CIS, Final Report, Ecoharmony,
London, 2007. See www.ecoharmony.com.
Bellamy, J. and N. Marmazinskaya, Terminal
Evaluation Report of the UNDP-GEF
Project Establishment of NuratauKyzylkum Biosphere Reserve Project as a
Model for Biodiversity Conservation in
Uzbekistan, UNDP, 2007.
Center of Hydrometeorological Service of
Uzbekistan (UZHYDROMET), brief
information note about UZNYDROMET,
Tashkent, 2006. See www.meteo.uz.
Edwards, P., and E. Bykova, Final Report of
the Mid-Term Evaluation Mission on
Conservation of Tugai Forest and
Strengthening Protected Area System in
the Amy Darya Delta of Karakalpakstan,
UNDP, 2008.
European Union/EuropeAid and UNDP,
Enhancement of Living Standards in
Karakalpakstan, Namangan and Fergana
Regions, 2007.
Fergana Region, 2007.
Namangan Region, 2006.
Government of Finland, Guidelines for
Programme Design, Monitoring and
Evaluation, Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Helsinki, 2000.
Government of Uzbekistan, Annual Review, State
Statistics Committee of Uzbekistan, 2008.
Government of Uzbekistan, Welfare Improvement
Strategy, 2007. See www.wis.uz.
Government of Uzbekistan, National Strategy

for Combating HIV/AIDS in the Republic
of Uzbekistan, 2007-2011, 2006.
Government of Uzbekistan, Official Statistics
in Uzbekistan: Institutional Basis, Quality
and Access, Policy Brief #1, Center for
Economic Research, 2006.
Government of Uzbekistan, Initial National
Communication of the Republic of
Uzbekistan under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change. Phase 2. Capacity-building to
Address Climate Change Related
Problems, Tashkent, 2001.
Government of Uzbekistan, Living Standard
Strategy, 2004.
Government of Uzbekistan, National
Environment Action Plan, 1996.
Government of Uzbekistan and United Nations
Country Team, Uzbekistan: Millennium
Development Goals Report, 2006.
Government of Uzbekistan and UNDP,
National Integrated Water Resources
Management and Water Efficiency Plan for
Uzbekistan, project document, 2007.
Government of Uzbekistan and UNDP,
Country Programme Action Plan
20052009, Uzbekistan.
Government of Uzbekistan/Center for
Economic Research and UNDP, Human
Development Report. Uzbekistan 2005.
Decentralization and Human
Development, 2005.
Government of Uzbekistan/Center for
Economic Research and UNDP, Linking
Macroeconomic Policy to Poverty
Reduction in Uzbekistan, Tashkent, 2005.
Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee
for Land Resources, Geodesy, Cartography
and State Cadastre and UNDP,
Environmental Atlas of Uzbekistan,
Tashkent, 2008.
ANNEX III. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
61
Government of Uzbekistan/State Committee for

Nature Protection and UNDP Uzbekistan,
Environmental Profile of Uzbekistan 2008
Based on Indicators, 2008.
Polishchuk L., Support to Reform Process in

Uzbekistan: Recommendations Towards
Sustainable Development of the Center for
Economic Research, UNDP, Uzbekistan, 2008.
Government of Uzbekistan/UzStat and UNDP,

Primary and Secondary Education in
Uzbekistan, Statistics Series No. 5, 2007.
Polishchuk, L., Project Evaluation Report on

Center for Economic and Social Studies
UZB/97/008, UNDP, Uzbekistan, 2003.

Healthcare in Uzbekistan: Facts and
Figures, Statistical Bulletin, Statistics
Series No 4.
Schlamadinger, B., V. Blujdea, V. and S.

Settelmyer, LULUCF Strategy for UNDP
in Eastern Europe and CIS, report
prepared for UNDP Bratislava Regional
Centre, TerraCarbonic, 2008.

Environmental Situation and Utilization of
Natural Resources in Uzbekistan: Facts and
Figures 20002004, Statistical Bulletin,
Statistics Series No 3, Tashkent, 2006.
See www.statistics.uz.
Tessier, P., Project Evaluation Report on

Fergana Region (ELS-Fergana), European
Union, 2007.

Gender Equality in Uzbekistan: Facts and
Figures 20002004, Statistical Bulletin,
Tashkent, 2005. See www.statistics.uz.
Harfs, J., An Evaluation of the EU/UNDP
Project Enhancement of Living Standards
in Karakalpakstan, European Union,
JuneJuly 2006.
Harfs, J., An Evaluation of the EU/UNDP
Project Enhancement of Living Standards
in Namangan, European Union,
JuneJuly 2006.
International Monetary Fund, Regional
Economic Outlook: Middle East and
Central Asia, May 2008.
International Monetary Fund, Regional
Economic Outlook: Middle East and
Central Asia, October 2007.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, Best-Practice Guide for a Positive
Business and Investment Climate, 2006.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, the United Nations Environment
Programme and UNDP, Environment and
security. Transforming Risks into Cooperation.
The Case of the Southern Caucasus.
Pteri, G. (ed.), Mastering Decentralization and
Public Administration reforms in Central
and Eastern Europe, Local Government
and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open
Society Institute, 2002.
62
Tortell, P., Uzbekistan National Waste

Management Strategy project, 6-month
Follow-Up Report, Government of
Uzbekistan/State Committee for Nature
Protection, UNDP Uzbekistan and New
Zealand Asia Development Assistance
Facility, November 2006.
Tortell P., K. Garratt and S. Khomenko,
Cluster Evaluation of the Environmental
Programme of UNDP Uzbekistan and
Needs Assessment, Mission Report,
Project Document UZB/99/009, UNDP,
Tashkent, 1999.
UNDP, Capacity Development: Empowering
People and Institutions. Annual Report
2008, 2008.
UNDP, Good Governance Unit Strategic
Note, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2008.
UNDP, Human Development Report.
Uzbekistan 20072008. Education in
Uzbekistan: Matching Supply and
Demand, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2008.
UNDP, Assessment of Development Results:
Evaluation of UNDP Contribution
Bhutan, Evaluation Office, 2007.
UNDP, Assessment of Development Results:
Evaluation of UNDPs Contribution
Laos, Evaluation Office, 2007.
UNDP, Evaluation of UNDP Contribution to
South-South Cooperation, Evaluation
Office, 2007.
UNDP, Options for Continuing Energy

Reforms in Uzbekistan, Policy Brief, 2007.
UNDP, Partners Survey. Uzbekistan by
Organization Type 2007.
UNDP, Practice Note for Capacities for
Integrated Local Development, 2007.
UNDP, Project Proposal Development Manual.
UNDP Interim Strategy for Enhancement
of Living Standards in Karakalpakstan
Project, 2007.
UNDP, Regional Bureau for Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States
Progress Report on Implementation of
GAP 2007, UNDP Uzbekistan.
UNDP, System of Indicators for Monitoring
and Evaluation of MDGs Achievement in
Uzbekistan, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2007.
UNDP, Administrative Reform and
Decentralization in the Republic of
Uzbekistan: Building of Institutional and
Financial Capacities of the Local SelfGovernment Authorities, analytical
report, 2006.
UNDP, Regional Project Document and

Regional Program Action Plan for
20062010, Regional Bureau for Europe
and the CIS, Bratislava Regional Centre,
Bratislava, 2005.
UNDP, Uzbekistan National Human
Development Report. Decentralization and
Human Development, 2005.
UNDP, Second Multi-Year Funding Framework,
2004-2007, 2003.
United Nations Country Team, UNDAF MidTerm Review, draft report, Uzbekistan, 2008.
United Nations Country Team, United Nations
Development Assistance Framework, MidTerm Review, revised draft, May 2008.
United Nations Country Team, Millennium
Development Goal Report 2006, 2006.
United Nations Country Team and ADB,
MDGs in Uzbekistan, 2004.
United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, World Investment Report
2007. Transnational Corporations,
Extractive Industries and Development,
New York and Geneva, 2007.
UNDP, Human Development Report 2006.

Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the
Global Water Crisis, 2006.
United Nations Evaluation Group, Norms for

Evaluation in the UN System, April 2005.
UNDP,Human Development Report. Uzbekistan

2006, UNDP Uzbekistan, 2006.
United Nations Evaluation Group, Standards

for Evaluation in the UN System,
April 2005.
UNDP, Millennium Development Goals Report,

Uzbekistan 2006.
UNDP, National Millennium Development
Goals: A Framework for Action, Europe
and the CIS Regional MDG Report, 2006.
UNDP, Uzbekistan National Human
Development Report. Health for All:
A Key Goal for Uzbekistan in the New
Millennium, 2006.
United Nations, United Nations Development

Assistance Framework, 20052009,
Tashkent, 2004.
United Nations, Common Country
Assessment, Uzbekistan, 2003.
United States Agency for International
Development and Government of
Uzbekistan/ Center for Economic Research,
Economic Review of Uzbekistan, 2008.
UNDP, Bringing Down Barriers: Regional

Cooperation for Human Development and
Human Security, Central Asia Human
Development Report, 2005.
The World Bank, Country Assistance Strategy

for Uzbekistan, 2008.
UNDP, Ex Post Evaluation of UNDP

Development Support Services Programme,
February, 2005.
The World Bank, Uzbekistan 2005 Survey,

Investment Climate Surveys, Draft
Country Profile.
63

UZBEKISTAN
Sales #: E.09.III.B.12
ISBN: 978-92-1-126245-2

Evaluation Office
One United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017, USA
Tel. (212) 906 5059, Fax (212) 906 6008
Internet: http://www.undp.org/eo
UZBEKISTAN
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINAT

AN DEVELOPMENT responsiveness NATIONAL OWN
NATIONAL OWNERSHIP effectiveness COORDINAT
effectiveness

ADR Uzbekistan

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ADR Uzbekistan

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

United Nations Development Programme

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT effectiveness COORDINAT

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

Evaluation Office, May 2009

REPORTS PUBLISHED UNDER THE ADR SERIES

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS: EVALUATION OF UNDP CONTRIBUTION UZBEKISTAN

Copyright UNDP 2009, all rights reserved.

I hope that the findings and recommendations of

Purpose and scope

2. Subregional development context

3. UN and UNDP in Uzbekistan

4. UNDP contribution to national development results

Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty

5. Cross-cutting themes and operational issues

6. Conclusions and recommendations

Boxes, figures and tables

Box 4.2 Electronically submitting tax reports and financial statements

Box 5.2 Three levels of capacity development

Figure 1. Total programme expenditures by UNDP corporate goal

Table 1. Evaluation criteria and questions

Table 2. Main economic indicators of Uzbekistan

Table 3. Progress towards achievement of the MDGs in Uzbekistan

Table 4. Poverty rates by province

Table 5. Human development of Uzbekistan

Table 8. UNDP programme expenditures (20002008)

Table 10. Capacity for monitoring and reporting MDG progress

Table 11. Fostering democratic governance: expected results

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Area Based Development

Present key findings, draw key lessons and

The ADR reviewed UNDP experience in

Over the past eight years, UNDP has focused its

Poverty reduction: At the national level,

policy support in response to government

Democratic governance: UNDP has

the implementation of key reforms, fast

Though such circumstances have made the

and other activities. Problems that are identified

At the same time, the approaches, scope and

UNDP strategic partnerships vary between

Inadequate use of capacity assessments has led to

tions, and limited sustainability of results. At the

All UNDP interventions should provide lessons

Make efforts to ensure UNDP activities are in

Incorporate human development approaches in

Use existing UNDP experience, strengths and

4. Expand the UNDP role in supporting government efforts at aid coordination.

As a committed and neutral partner, UNDP is in

Use needs and institutional assessments in all

Ensure direct and explicit linkages with decision

Ensure wider participation in annual reviews and

Provide an analysis of how UNDP has

The United Nations Development Programme

The ADR reviewed UNDP experience in

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1.2 METHODOLOGY OF THE ADR

The objectives of the Uzbekistan ADR as

The Uzbekistan ADR focuses on outcomes,

Provide an independent assessment of the

Table 1. Evaluation criteria and questions 1

UNDP-supported projects and interventions

direct beneficiaries of UNDP interventions.